¶1The Court granted transfer in this case to consider whether the trial court committed reversible error in excluding evidence tending to show defendant’s reputation as a “good family man” and the relationship between defendant and other members of his family. The Court agrees with the opinion of the court of appeals and affirms defendant’s sodomy conviction.
¶2Defendant was jury-tried and convicted of sodomizing his 12-year-old step-daughter. He does not question the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s verdict, but urges an exception to the general rule that good character or reputation is established by proof of the defendant’s general reputation and evidence of a defendant’s specific acts, good or bad, is not admissible. State v. Schmidt, 530 S.W.2d 424 (Mo.App.1975).
¶3Because the victim was a member of defendant’s family at the time of the alleged crime, the defendant sought to elicit testimony from the victim’s maternal grandmother regarding defendant’s relationship with his step-daughter and with the rest of the family. Such testimony, defendant asserts, would be relevant to show the likelihood that he did not commit the offense charged. Defendant argues that this type of testimony is especially called for in this age when society has focused on the problem of sexual abuse of children.
¶4The trial court is vested with broad discretion in ruling questions of relevancy of evidence and, absent a clear showing of abuse of that discretion, the appellate court should not interfere with the trial court’s *494ruling. State v. Wood, 596 S.W.2d 394 (Mo.1980).
¶5Here, defendant’s character was not an essential element of the charge, claim or defense. Consequently, the general rule is applicable that evidence concerning the defendant’s character may only be shown by testimony as to his reputation — not by specific acts or conduct in the family setting.
¶6Judgment affirmed.