law of evidence assignment
Question 1
Introduction
In law of evidence, a person’s “character” is understood as his propensity or disposition to behave in a certain way. This is different from habit and more like behavioral traits that are more deeply ingrained. “he has a bad character” usually means that he is given to wicked acts, and if one were asked to justify such a statement one would usually refer to incidents of past bad conduct by the person in question. The is however an older meaning to character, namely a person’s reputation. In the school for scandal, for example, the word is constantly used in this way. When the hypocrite Joseph surfaces is discovered trying to seduce lady Teazle, he says that his character is ruined, which shows that until one is found out there may be a divergence between one’s character in this sense and one’s “real” character or disposition1. The general rule is that the prosecution may not adduce evidence of the accused bad character but the accused may adduce evidence of his own good character. This rule is subject to same exceptions in the criminal procedure act 51 of 1977. In this part of the assignment the law governing character evidence, its inadmissibility, its admissibility or exception, relevant statutes and cases will be discussed to show why the ample of the accused violent nature, cannot be adduced as eviden1ce in court.
Good character
The accused is always unfitted to adduce evidence of his own good character either by calling a witness to testify to it or by testifying to it himself. A witness who testifies to the accussed’s good character may, in theory speak only of his reputation, but when an accused testifies he cannot give evidence about others say about his reputation; he may only say that his conduct has been good in certain respects. When the accused gives evidence of his own good character it is therefore normally recital to his previous good acts2. In Rv Rowton (1865), 169 ER 1497 (CBP.418), a school master was charged with
Introduction
In law of evidence, a person’s “character” is understood as his propensity or disposition to behave in a certain way. This is different from habit and more like behavioral traits that are more deeply ingrained. “he has a bad character” usually means that he is given to wicked acts, and if one were asked to justify such a statement one would usually refer to incidents of past bad conduct by the person in question. The is however an older meaning to character, namely a person’s reputation. In the school for scandal, for example, the word is constantly used in this way. When the hypocrite Joseph surfaces is discovered trying to seduce lady Teazle, he says that his character is ruined, which shows that until one is found out there may be a divergence between one’s character in this sense and one’s “real” character or disposition1. The general rule is that the prosecution may not adduce evidence of the accused bad character but the accused may adduce evidence of his own good character. This rule is subject to same exceptions in the criminal procedure act 51 of 1977. In this part of the assignment the law governing character evidence, its inadmissibility, its admissibility or exception, relevant statutes and cases will be discussed to show why the ample of the accused violent nature, cannot be adduced as eviden1ce in court.
Good character
The accused is always unfitted to adduce evidence of his own good character either by calling a witness to testify to it or by testifying to it himself. A witness who testifies to the accussed’s good character may, in theory speak only of his reputation, but when an accused testifies he cannot give evidence about others say about his reputation; he may only say that his conduct has been good in certain respects. When the accused gives evidence of his own good character it is therefore normally recital to his previous good acts2. In Rv Rowton (1865), 169 ER 1497 (CBP.418), a school master was charged with