Rule 404. Character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts
(a) Character Evidence.
(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in conformity with the character or trait.
(2) Exceptions for a Defendant or Victim in a Criminal Case. The following exceptions apply in a criminal case:
(A) a defendant may offer evidence of the defendant’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it;
(B) subject to the limitations in Rule 412, a defendant may offer evidence of an alleged victim’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may:
(i) offer evidence to rebut it; and
(ii) offer evidence of the defendant’s same trait; and
(C) in a homicide case, the prosecutor may offer evidence of the alleged victim’s trait of peacefulness to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor.
(3) Exceptions for a Witness. Evidence of a witness’s character may be admitted under Rules 607, 608, and 609.
(b) Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts.
(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in conformity with the character.
(2) Permitted Uses; Notice in a Criminal Case. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. On request by a defendant in a criminal case, the prosecutor must:
(A) provide reasonable notice of the general nature of any such evidence that the prosecutor intends to offer at trial; and
(B) do so before trial, or during trial if the court excuses lack of pretrial notice on good cause shown.
(c) Evidence of Similar Crimes in Child-Molestation Cases.
(1) Permitted Uses. In a criminal case in which a defendant is accused of child molestation, the court may admit evidence that the defendant committed any other acts of child molestation to prove a propensity to commit the crime charged.
(2) Disclosure. If the prosecution intends to offer this evidence it shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown.
(3) For purposes of this rule “child molestation” means an act committed in relation to a child under the age of 14 which would, if committed in this state, be a sexual offense or an attempt to commit a sexual offense.
(4) Rule 404(c) does not limit the admissibility of evidence otherwise admissible under Rule 404(a), 404(b), or any other rule of evidence.
2011 Advisory Committee Note. – The language of this rule has been amended as part of the restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE NOTE.
Rule 404(a)-(b) is now Federal Rule of Evidence 404 verbatim. The 2001 amendments add the notice provisions already in the federal rule, add the amendments made to the federal rule effective December 1, 2000, and delete language added to the Utah Rule 404(b) in 1998. However, the deletion of that language is not intended to reinstate the holding of State v. Doporto, 935 P.2d 484 (Utah 1997). Evidence sought to be admitted under Rule 404(b) must also conform with Rules 402 and 403 to be admissible.
The 2008 amendment adds Rule 404(c). It applies in criminal cases where the accused is charged with a sexual offense against a child under the age of 14. Before evidence may be admitted under Rule 404(c), the trial court should conduct a hearing out of the presence of the jury to determine: (1) whether the accused committed other acts, which if committed in this State would constitute a sexual offense or an attempt to commit a sexual offense; (2) whether the evidence of other acts tends to prove the accused’s propensity to commit the crime charged; and (3) whether under Rule 403 the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs the probative value of the evidence, or whether for other reasons listed in Rule 403 the evidence should not be admitted. The court should consider the factors applicable as set forth in State v. Shickles, 760 P.2d 291, 295-96 (Utah 1988), which also may be applicable in determinations under Rule 404(b).
Upon the request of a party, the court may be required to provide a limiting instruction for evidence admitted under Rule 404(b) or (c).