What circumstances might render bad character evidence prejudicial?

The scenario where a single non-violent conviction could be considered prejudicial relates to the potential for an unfair impact on the jury's perception of the defendant. In legal contexts, bad character evidence often carries a risk of influencing a jury's decision based solely on a person's past actions rather than the facts of the current case.

Even if the conviction is for a non-violent crime, it can still invoke bias, leading jurors to harbor negative feelings towards the defendant, which could overshadow their evaluation of the evidence presented in the present case. The concern is that the jury might infer a tendency towards criminal behavior, which may lead them to find the defendant guilty based on their character rather than the merits of the case at hand.

Evidence that is too old may not significantly impact the present evaluation since it could be argued that a long passage of time might indicate reformation. Similarly, evidence relating to unrelated offenses or the involvement of multiple witnesses may not by itself create a substantial prejudicial effect unless it demonstrates a pattern that is directly relevant to the matter being tried. Thus, a single non-violent conviction stands out as particularly prejudicial due to the risks associated with bias and generalization.