Regarding the question of LK’s character or past bad acts being admissible in a criminal trial, NJ has adopted rules of evidence that are very similar to the federal rules (adopted by many states, sometimes with slight modifications) and will therefore be familiar to attorneys in other jurisdictions. I am admitted to the bar in a different state but studied the federal rules in law school. Here is a link for anyone who would like to read the rules for themselves: https://www.njcourts.gov/attorneys/a…nce4.pdf?c=yZH
The basic rule is that character evidence is not admissible to prove that the person acted in character (paraphrasing here…see NJRE 404(a)) but there are exceptions. Especially pertinent to this case are:
NJRE 404(a)(2)(2) Character of victim. --Evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused or by the prosecution to rebut the same, or evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor;
So if the defense in a criminal case has evidence that the victim has a penchant for harassment or aggression, that might be admitted. Or if the defense is claiming self-defense, the prosecution could submit evidence of the victim’s peaceful nature.
NJRE 404(b) Other crimes, wrongs, or acts. --Except as otherwise provided by Rule 608(b), evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the disposition of a person in order to show that such person acted in conformity therewith. Such evidence may be admitted for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident when such matters are relevant to a material issue in dispute.
So, “prior bad acts” (term of art) or crimes like harassment of people other than the defendant cannot be used to show that the victim was harassing the defendant because s/he had done so in the past. But they might be admissible if an attorney convinces the judge that those prior bad acts reveal something about the victim’s intent, plan, etc. It can be a fine line and really depends on the attorneys and judges involved.
As of 2018 at least NJ case law prescribed use of a four-pronged test for determining admissibility of prior bad acts: the evidence must be 1) “relevant to a material issue;” 2) “similar in kind and reasonably close in time to the offense charged;” 3) “clear and convincing;” and 4) “[t]he probative value of the evidence must not be outweighed by its apparent prejudice.” (State v. Cofield, 605 A.2d 230)
So (as always) a judge could rule that evidence of prior bad acts is unduly prejudicial and refuse to admit it even if s/he believes it is relevant and probative.
Clear as mud?
Caveat: I am not familiar with how these laws are applied in NJ in practice and I’m not spending my time researching it. I also know from experience that judges can be very unpredictable. I have seen some questionable stuff be admitted into evidence over well-argued objections from the other side, and seen some evidence that should have been admitted be excluded. So, even knowing the rules it is hard to predict what would happen in a particular case. Going to trial is unpredictable and risky for both sides, which is part of why so many cases settle or end in plea deals.
