Not unless they establish a pattern of conduct, which is what Munoz was adding clarity too. The school record as presented is hardly that.
As stated before, I believe it was done in discovery (probably not the correct term) so an appeal would not be made later.
Three suspensions is not going to make a conduct standard, especially without a criminal allegation of such conduct outside of school.
It is also my understanding that if the prosecution brings up TMs character, then it would be fair game for the defense. Likewise, if the defense brings up GZ character.
No, only if there is a reason to bring it up, you can not just go fishing where ever. Testimony that TM was known in his social environments for being aggressive would count for conduct testimony.
The school record does not meet that standard, as far as we know.
Just because the prosecution brings up something does not mean the defense can just bring in anything it want.
I didn't say it that it was the number of suspensions that would be the relevant part.
Then again perhaps you did not read the Munoz decision for application in a court, the only reason to allow something is if it is relevant to the conduct of an individual in the case.
The school record as it stands does not meet that bar.
I did actually read that same link as you, and thought this was the relevant part:
The purpose of introducing the reputation evidence in a self-defense case is to show that the victim was the initial aggressor. Pino, 389 So.2d at 1194. Reputation evidence is offered to show that the victim acted in conformity with a known character trait. Because reputation evidence relates to the conduct of the victim, the defendant is not required to have had prior knowledge of the victim's reputation in the community.
Pino is referenced more than once, the first reference has this clause:
:'As part of that foundation, the defendant must establish that the victim committed some overt act at or about the time of the incident that reasonably indicated a need for action by the defendant in self-defense. Id.; Sanchez v. State, 445 So.2d 1, 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Hager v. State, 439 So.2d 996, 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).'
Second
'Once the proper foundation is laid, the defendant may introduce evidence of the victim's reputation or of specific instances of the victim's conduct. See § 90.405, Fla. Stat. (2009). There are, however, important distinctions and evidentiary requirements between reputation evidence and evidence of specific acts admitted under section 90.404(1)(b). Grace v. State, 832 So.2d 224, 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Pino, 389 So.2d at 1194.'
You seem to ignore the sentence right after the one you quote
'
See Dwyer v. State, 743 So.2d 46, 48 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (holding that "a defendant who alleges self-defense can show, through the testimony of another witness, that the alleged victim had a propensity for violence, thereby inferring that the alleged victim was the aggressor.
None of what we know abou the school record would meet teh standard of teh clause of the following sentence to your quote
If the school records show any incidents that provide evidence of TM acting as an aggressor, i.e. starting fights, it seems they would be relevant.
Not really, having been the instigator of a fight at school would hardly meet the bar at all, you would have to have multiple avenues of evidence to establish the
propensity for violence
If there is reputation evidence that shows TM to be aggressive, I think it may apply.
I disagree, seriously this was done to avoid grounds for an appeal, now if the defense subpoenas multiple people administrators, such as school mates of TM, and other community members and establish that TM had a pattern of conduct around the time of his death, that would meet the standard of Munoz.
And again I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this without the behavior common to this thread.
