UNIT 6

EVIDENCE OF CHARACTER

Evidence of character refers to testimony or documents that provide information about a person's character or reputation. It is used in both civil and criminal cases to establish the likelihood of a person's conduct based on their character traits. In civil cases, evidence of character is generally inadmissible to prove conduct in conformity with that character on a particular occasion. This is because the character of a person is not considered relevant to the issues at hand. However, there are exceptions where character evidence may be relevant, such as in cases involving defamation, child custody, or negligence while in criminal cases. See the case of R v. Akerele (1941) 7 WACA 110 which illustrates the principle that evidence of bad character cannot be used by the prosecution to infer guilt unless the defendant has introduced evidence of good character and sections 77-82 of the Evidence Act which outline the rules regarding the admissibility of character evidence in Nigerian courts. The admissibility of character evidence is more nuanced in the following;

1. Prosecution's evidence: The prosecution is generally not allowed to introduce evidence of the defendant's bad character to prove they committed the crime charged. This is to prevent prejudice against the defendant. However, if the defendant introduces evidence of good character, the prosecution may rebut it with evidence of bad character.
2. Defendant's evidence: The defendant is allowed to introduce evidence of their good character as it is relevant to their credibility and the likelihood of committing the alleged crime. The evidence may be in the form of testimony from witnesses who know the defendant well.
3. Victim's character: In some cases, the character of the victim may be relevant, such as in cases of self-defense, where the violent character of the victim may be considered.

OPINION EVIDENCE

Opinion evidence refers to evidence of what a witness thinks, believes, or infers about facts in dispute, as opposed to direct knowledge or observations of those facts. The general rule is that opinion evidence is inadmissible. Witnesses must testify to facts within their knowledge, not their opinions or inferences. The reason is that it is the role of the judge or jury to form opinions based on the evidence presented. However, the exceptions to the general rule is the expert opinion which is about experts in various fields (medicine, engineering, forensic science, etc.) that are permitted to give opinion evidence within their area of expertise. This is because their specialized knowledge can assist the court in understanding complex issues beyond common knowledge. Non-expert witnesses may give opinion evidence in certain situations, such as an opinion on the identity of a person or handwriting and opinions about a person's mental condition if they have had sufficient opportunity to observe the person. See sections 67-76 of the Evidence Act 2011 which govern the admissibility and scope of opinion evidence in Nigerian courts and the case of Onyemaizu v. A-G of Anambra State (2012) LPELR-7911(SC) which highlights the admissibility of expert opinion evidence and the qualifications required for an expert witness.Criteria for admissibility on opinion evidence includes the following;

1. The subject matter must be one where expert testimony can assist the court.
2. The witness must be qualified as an expert by education, training, or experience.
3. The opinion must be based on facts that are either admitted or proved by the evidence.

SIMILAR FACT EVIDENCE

Similar fact evidence refers to evidence that shows that the accused has previously engaged in conduct similar to the act they are currently charged with. It is used to establish patterns of behavior or intent. Similar fact evidence is generally inadmissible because it can be highly prejudicial. However, it may be admissible if it is relevant to an issue in the case other than the defendant's character. Similar fact evidence is often used in criminal cases to show that the defendant has a particular modus operandi, which makes it more likely that they committed the offense charged. See sections 8-13 of the Evidence Act 2011 which outline the rules regarding the admissibility of similar fact evidence in Nigerian courts and see also the case of DPP v. Kilbourne (1973) AC 729 which established the principle that similar fact evidence is admissible if its probative value exceeds its prejudicial effect and the case of Mohamed v. The State (2006) LPELR-1899(SC) which demonstrates the application of similar fact evidence in proving a pattern of behavior. Criteria for admissibility on similar fact evidence includes the following;

1. Relevance: this is where the similar fact evidence must be directly relevant to an issue in the case, such as intent, motive, or a pattern of behavior.
2. Probative value vs. Prejudicial effect: this is where the probative value of the evidence must outweigh its potential prejudicial effect.

CONCLUSION

These notes should provide a comprehensive understanding of the topics, along with relevant Nigerian cases and statutes.