HAROLD EUGENE WILLIAMS v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals, Arthur, March 30, 2017,
Reputation– A 1990 conviction for battery could be used to cross-examine a character witness testifying that the defendant was known to be peaceful.

Affirmed by COA

Facts
Williams was involved in a relationship with the victim when he observed that she was sending nude photographs to another man.
Swan claimed that Williams called her a “bitch,” accused her of cheating on him, shoved her against the bathroom wall, threw her phone towards her, hit her upper body, pushed her to the floor, and kicked her while she was on the floor on her back, all the while demanding that she leave.
Swan retreated to a nearby 7-11 and called the police.
An officer went to Williams’ house and retrieved the victim’s cell phone. Once the officer returned the phone to the victim, the victim received a call from a friend who told her to check her Facebook because nude photographs had been posted on her page.
The officer showed the victim how to delete the postings.
Williams was charged with assault, revenge porn, and other charges.
At trial, Williams had three friends testify that he had a reputation for being peaceful. The prosecutor cross-examined the friends by asking whether they knew about Williams’ prior conviction for battery back in 1990 and whether that would change their opinion of him.
Williams was acquitted of revenge porn, but convicted of assault.
He appealed, claiming that his 1990 conviction for battery never should have been brought up.
Law from the Case
Reputation- In a criminal case, a defendant can try to show evidence of his good character.
Reputation- Rebuttal- If a defendant tries to show evidence of good character, the State can try to rebut that evidence.
Reputation- Rebuttal- A conviction may not be admissible where it no longer has any conceivable relevance to the character trait in question.