§ 1.  Generally.
§ 2.  The Hearsay Exceptions.

See also CHARACTER; OTHER ACTS AND OCCURRENCES

§ 1.  Generally

A witness who is well acquainted with the party may testify as to his or her reputation, even if witness never heard the party’s reputation discussed.{footnote}Wisniewski v. State, 138 A.2d 333, 339 (Del. 1957).{/footnote}

6(a)(i).  Absence of Negative Reports About the Party

It is permissible for a reputation witness to testify that he or she has heard nothing bad about a party, where the witness was in a position to have heard such statements.{footnote}Lowery v. State, 107 So. 2d 366, 367 (Ala. App. 1958); Rogers v. U.S., 534 A.2d 928, 930 n. 1 (D.C. 1986) (minister); State v. Huffman, 607 S.W.2d 702, 704 (Mo. App. 1980); State v. Gambutti, 115 A.2d 136, 143 (N.J. Super. 1955); State v. Baldanzo, 148 A. 725, 727 (N.J. 1930); Baldwin v. State, 538 S.W.2d 109, 113 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976).{/footnote}  The relevance of such testimony has been explained by one court:

It is the unusual, the abnormal, the nonconforming act that provokes talk. To behave one’s self, to live decently, is to be, in those respects, normal and conventional . . . . There is little therein to start tongues wagging. When one departs from the conventional and does that which the majority of people do not do, then talk begins . . . . It does not follow, however, that a man who leads a life that, according to the standards of the neighborhood, is usual and correct and who, therefore, has not given his neighbors food for chat, holds no place in the esteem of the community. On the contrary, he may be highly regarded. The very absence of talk is an indication that the neighborhood regards him as worthy . . . . Shall then the man whose life has met the community thought as to how a person should live, and who consequently has not been talked about, be deprived of the privilege of proving this reputation when the hour of need arrives and when it may be of vital importance to him to show what the community estimate of him is? In all fairness that should not be and, according to the weight of authority, is not so.{footnote}State v. Baldanzo, 148 A. 725, 727 (N.J. 1930), quoted in Rogers v. U.S., 534 A.2d 928, 930 n. 1 (D.C. 1986).{/footnote}

Such testimony "is accepted only from a witness whose knowledge of defendant’s habitat and surroundings is intimate enough so that his failure to hear of any relevant ill repute is an assurance that no ugly rumors were about."{footnote}Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469, 478 (1948).{/footnote} 

The absence of such reports is not probative of a person’s bad reputation, however.{footnote}Rogers v. U.S., 534 A.2d 928, 930 n. 2 (D.C. 1986) (dictum).
CHECK Gilson v. State, 140 Tex. Crim. 345,, 145 S.W.2d 182, 183 (1940).{/footnote} [WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?]

The Hearsay Exceptions

Exceptions to the hearsay rule exist to allow evidence of reputation as to certain issues: character,{footnote} [3563]FRE 803(20); Cal. Evid. Code § 1324{/footnote} family events or relationships,{footnote} [3564]FRE 803(19).{/footnote} historical facts,{footnote} [3565]FRE 803(20).{/footnote} and the boundaries of real estate.{footnote} [3566]FRE 803(20).{/footnote}  See CHARACTER; FAMILY; HISTORICAL EVIDENCE; REAL PROPERTY; STATEMENTS AGAINST INTEREST–Statements Injurious to Declarant’s Reputation.  See also INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS–Rehabilitation; TRUTHFULNESS–Witness’ Reputation.;
As to Records

West 376 (13)

As to Other Acts

It has been held improper to cross-examine a defendanat as to his reputation as source for prescription drugs where the defendant had not placed his character in issue.{footnote} [3567]United States v. Tran Trong Cuong, 18 F.3d 1132 (4th Cir. 1994).{/footnote}

Experts

One expert may not testify as to another expert’s good reputation, since determinations of credibility are within the exclusive province of the jury.{footnote} [3568]United States v. Candoli, 870 F.2d 496 (9th Cir. 1989).{/footnote}