This paper sets out to analyze the application of good and bad character evidence to criminal proceedings within the corpus of the Evidence Act, 2011.
The term "character" has been defined by several legal writers and Judges for the purpose of determining its scope in the light of the law of evidence. The general consensus from the several definitions is that “character” is the general reputation as opposed to his disposition. Under the Nigerian Evidence Act 2011, the same definition was given pursuant to section 77 which defines the expression “character” to mean reputation as distinguished from disposition. It goes on to state that except as mentioned in sections 78 to 82, evidence may be given only of the general reputation, and not of the particular acts by which reputation or disposition is shown.
Unlike in civil proceedings, the Evidence Act creates a distinction between bad and good character for the purpose of determining the admissibility of character evidence in criminal proceedings.
Table of Contents
1. THE RELEVANCE AND ADMISSIBILITY OF THE EVIDENCE OF GOOD AND BAD CHARACTER OF AN ACCUSED PERSON IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING UNDER THE EVIDENCE ACT, 2011
Research Objectives and Key Topics
The primary objective of this work is to analyze the legal framework and admissibility criteria for character evidence in criminal proceedings under the Evidence Act, 2011, focusing specifically on the distinction between good and bad character evidence and the relevant exceptions to its general inadmissibility.
- Legal definition of character versus disposition
- Procedural and substantive purposes of character evidence
- Admissibility of good character evidence in criminal trials
- Exceptions to the rule of inadmissibility for bad character evidence
- Judicial interpretation of "imputations on the character" of prosecution witnesses
Excerpt from the Book
THE RELEVANCE AND ADMISSIBILITY OF THE EVIDENCE OF GOOD AND BAD CHARACTER OF AN ACCUSED PERSON IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING UNDER THE EVIDENCE ACT, 2011
The term character has been defined by several legal writers and Judges for the purpose of determining its scope in the light of the law of evidence. The general consensus from the several definitions is that “character” is the general reputation as opposed to his disposition. Under the Nigerian Evidence Act 2011, the same definition was given pursuant to section 77 which defines the expression “character” to mean reputation as distinguished from disposition. It goes on to state that except as mentioned in sections 78 to 82, evidence may be given only of the general reputation, and not of the particular acts by which reputation or disposition is shown.
Character evidence serves both procedural and substantive purposes. In the former case, it is applied to impeach the credibility of a witness. In the case of Emoga v. State, the Supreme Court held that the proper procedure for drawing the attention of the court as to the credibility of a witness is to cross-examine the said witness as to his credit. The lawyer carrying out the cross examination would be able to delve into his past to drag up dirt as can be found there.
For substantive purposes, character evidence is used to establish a fact in issue. This distinction is important because the exclusionary rules under the Evidence Act affects substantive issues as opposed to impeaching of a witness’ credibility.
Summary of Chapters
THE RELEVANCE AND ADMISSIBILITY OF THE EVIDENCE OF GOOD AND BAD CHARACTER OF AN ACCUSED PERSON IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING UNDER THE EVIDENCE ACT, 2011: This section outlines the legal definitions of character evidence, differentiates between procedural and substantive applications, and provides a detailed analysis of the statutory rules and judicial exceptions governing its admissibility under the Nigerian Evidence Act, 2011.
Keywords
Character Evidence, Evidence Act 2011, Criminal Proceeding, General Reputation, Disposition, Admissibility, Credibility, Impeachment, Good Character, Bad Character, Criminal Charge, Section 81, Section 82, Section 180, Judicial Precedent
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this academic work?
This work examines the legal relevance and admissibility of evidence regarding the good or bad character of an accused person within the context of criminal proceedings under the Evidence Act, 2011.
What are the central thematic fields discussed?
The central themes include the statutory definitions of character, the distinction between general reputation and disposition, and the specific conditions under which character evidence is either admissible or excluded.
What is the core research objective?
The aim is to clarify how the Nigerian Evidence Act, 2011, differentiates between the procedural use of character evidence to impeach credibility and its substantive use to establish facts in issue.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The work utilizes a legal-analytical method, examining primary statutory provisions (Evidence Act, Criminal Code) and relevant judicial precedents to interpret the application of the law.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The main body covers the definition of character, the admissibility of good character evidence, the general rule of inadmissibility for bad character, and the specific statutory exceptions provided in the Act.
Which keywords characterize this work?
Key terms include Character Evidence, Evidence Act 2011, Criminal Proceeding, Credibility, Admissibility, and Judicial Precedent.
How does the law distinguish between a "mere denial" and an "imputation on the character"?
As established in cases like Selvey v. DPP and R v. Jones, a mere denial of an allegation—even in emphatic language—does not constitute an attack on the character of a witness, whereas claiming that an investigation was a deliberate concoction does.
What is the rationale behind the rule of excluding bad character evidence?
The rationale is often described by the phrase "giving a dog a bad name in order to hang it," implying that evidence of bad character is excluded to prevent unfair prejudice against the defendant unless it is a necessary ingredient of the offence.
How is the "limited value" of good character evidence described?
It is viewed as evidence that may allay suspicion or influence a Judge's belief regarding a defendant's testimony, but it does not serve as a complete defense to a criminal charge.
Under what circumstances can a co-accused give evidence of bad character?
Under section 180(g)(iii), an accused is allowed to give evidence of bad character against a co-accused, particularly if that co-accused turns into a prosecution witness, to properly discredit their testimony.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Anonym (Autor:in), 2021, The Evidence of Good and Bad Character of an Accused Person, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1144779
