In a criminal trial, if a defendant claims self-defense, what can the prosecution introduce evidence of?

In a criminal trial where a defendant claims self-defense, the prosecution may introduce evidence regarding the victim's character, specifically to show that the victim had a non-violent nature. This evidence is particularly relevant because the self-defense claim typically hinges on whether the defendant had a reasonable belief that they faced an imminent threat of harm. By establishing the victim's non-violent character, the prosecution can argue that the defendant’s perception of threat was not reasonable.

In essence, proving that the victim was generally non-violent challenges the credibility of the defendant’s assertion of having acted in self-defense. If the victim is portrayed as non-violent, it could suggest that the defendant may not have had a genuine fear for their safety, thus undermining the self-defense claim.

While aspects such as the defendant's violent history, mental state, or motives might create a compelling narrative in the context of other charges, they do not directly help to counter a self-defense claim in the same manner as the victim's character evidence does. Thus, the prosecution's ability to introduce evidence of the victim's non-violent character plays a significant role in assessing the reasonableness of the defendant's actions during the incident in question.