Rape shield laws frequently make it impermissible -- sometimes in trials of civil actions as well as in criminal trials -- to introduce evidence either to show that an alleged victim of sexual wrongdoing engaged in other sexual behavior or to show the alleged victim's sexual predisposition.

Smith v. United States, 161 U.S. 85, 88 (1896) ("that the deceased had the general reputation of being a quarrelsome and dangerous person was competent, especially if his character in this respect was known to the defendant").Evidence that would be prohibited character evidence if offered to show a person's conduct is not barred by the character evidence rule if it is offered to show some other matter such as another person's belief.

Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(4) ("(A) A statement concerning the declarant's own birth, adoption, marriage, divorce, legitimacy, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, ancestry, or other similar fact of personal or family history, even though declarant had no means of acquiring personal knowledge of the matter stated; or (B) a statement...If the declarant is unavailable, Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(4) or a comparable State rules recognizes a hearsay exception for (A) A statement concerning the declarant's own birth, adoption, marriage, divorce, legitimacy, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, ancestry, or other similar fact of personal or family history, even though declarant had no means of acquiring personal knowledge of the matter stated; or (B) a statement concerning the foregoing matters, and death also, of another person, if the declarant was related to the other by blood, adoption, or marriage or was so intimately associated with the other's family as to be likely to have accurate information concerning the matter declared.

United States v. Harris, 331 F.2d 185, 188-189 (4th Cir. 1964) (reversing conviction for possession of nontaxpaid whiskey and ordering new trial because even though during direct examination defendant had admitted prior convictions for dealing in nontaxpaid whiskey, the trial court erred in admitting...A criminal defendant may offer a pertinent trait of his or her character circumstantially -- to show the defendant's doing or non-doing of a specific act.