CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Character and Reputation Evidence
......Charact. Evid. of Victim: Crim. Cases
.........Offered by D to Prove Char. of Victim
12 Cards On This Topic:

As court not required to admit evidence that merely makes crime Vs look bad, trial court did not abuse its broad discretion in concluding toxicology evidence of Vs' meth use lacked probative value.

No abuse of discretion to exclude evidence re female V's alleged propensity for violence and prior firearm use where no evidence she was a threat to D-she was not near guns, was holding toddler, beaten, and shot in back of head.

Trial ct. did not err in excluding penalty phase evidence that V2 knew of V1's drug dealing to establish her choice to live with V1 contributed to her own death.

Evidence of 3d party threats admissible to support self-defense claim if there is evidence from which jury may find D reasonably associated V with those threats.

Reversible error to preclude assault D from testifying as to V's past violent acts in order to show D's state of mind re self defense.

EC 782 does not apply to prior rape complaints and trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence V made prior "false" rape complaints.

Trial court did not err in excluding testimony about V's sexual conduct with young man, which lay pastor D reported to her parents, to explain V's alleged bias against D.

Evidence of O's violent conduct before D resisted arrest did not open door for DA to offer evidence of D's violent character: Admission harmless and counsel's failure to object did not prejudice D.

No DP violation in exclusion of evidence child V made prior false molest allegation against uncle where D never actually proffered uncle's testimony and trial ct. never excluded it.

No abuse of discretion in excluding testimony of defense psychiatrist who hadn't seen V as it was generally inadmissible, highly disfavored and of little probative value.

As not reasonably probable that admission of foster mother's testimony about V would have resulted in verdict more favorable to D, error in excluding her proposed testimony did not merit reversal.

In criminal trial, D may attempt to prove self-defense with evidence of turbulent and dangerous character of V, or bad reputation for peace and quiet.