In this area of trial evidence, when a defendant offers evidence of a pertinent trait, the opposing side may respond with rebuttal evidence, but the scope is limited by the context. In many situations, especially those involving self-defense claims, the relevant rebuttal focuses on the victim’s character rather than the defendant’s. The reason is that the victim’s trait bears on the reasonableness of the defendant’s perception and actions, which is central to the defense. Therefore, the admissible rebuttal evidence in this context is limited to the victim’s trait. That’s why the best answer is that the victim’s trait only may be used for rebuttal. The other options misstate who may be rebutted or suggest broader or no rebuttal, which conflicts with how this facet of evidence is typically applied.

Leading questions are those that suggest the answer. On direct examination, the witness should describe events in their own words, so leading questions are generally avoided. The proper exception is when you need to develop the testimony or help the witness provide a coherent narrative—such as when the witness is reluctant or forgetful and you’re trying to jog memory. When you move to cross-examination, you may use leading questions to control the testimony, highlight inconsistencies, and elicit admissions. The same approach applies with adverse or hostile witnesses, where the goal is to challenge the credibility or obtain precise admissions. This combination—restraining leading questions on direct while allowing them on cross and with adverse witnesses—best captures the rule. Other statements misstate the rule: leading questions aren’t prohibited on all examinations, they’re not always allowed on direct, and they’re not never allowed on cross.

Rule 406 lets you use evidence of a person’s habit or an organization’s routine practice to prove that the person acted in conformity with that habit or routine on the occasion in question. The idea is that when a behavior is a regular, automatic response to a specific cue, it’s more reliable to infer that someone will act the same way again than to rely on general character traits. Habit evidence is specifically about those regular, particularized actions, while routine practice works in the same way for groups or organizations. That’s why this option is the best fit: it captures the essential rule—that evidence of a habitual behavior can be admitted to prove conduct in accordance with that habit. It’s broader than mere reputation or general character, and it doesn’t require expert testimony. The other choices either misstate the scope of Rule 406 (character reputation is not the correct basis to prove routine conduct) or unfairly limit the rule (routine practice proven only as misconduct) or inaccurately demand expert testimony for routine conduct.

Rule 704 allows an expert to give opinions on ultimate issues, such as whether the defendant had the mental state required for the crime. In criminal cases, though, many jurisdictions limit this kind of testimony to avoid the expert steering the jury’s verdict or effectively deciding the case for them. So the concept tested is that experts may address ultimate issues, but not uniformly; some jurisdictions permit it while others impose limits. An expert might explain factors showing impairment or the likely mental state, but the jury still determines guilt or innocence, and the scope of allowed ultimate-issue testimony can vary by jurisdiction.