CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Character and Reputation Evidence
......To Prove Conduct & Prior Bad Acts
.........Admis. When Relv to Prove Fact In Issue
............In General
 24 Cards On This Topic:
  • FRE 404 (b) did not prohibit evidence of D's theft of cocaine from the shipment he conspired to transport where the theft was inextricably intertwined with the conspiracy charge.
  • Trial court's refusal to sever murder counts properly charged together was not abuse of discretion where no prejudice to D shown.
  • Trial court properly denied severance of murder charges where D failed to establish evidence was not cross-admissible and could not establish any other factor showing the need for a severance.
  • All circumstances, including compatible nature of each 3d party culpability defense, strongly supported denial of severance of D's and co-D girlfriend's trials.
  • No abuse of discretion in consolidating murder and conspiracy to murder charges where none of the factors for assessing prejudice arising from joinder was present.
  • Trial court did not err in denying severance of capital murder from other attempted murder/robbery and robbery charges where all offenses of same class and evidence cross-admissible.
  • Testimony D housed in high-security block for inmates with violent histories, and included notorious gang members, merely placed in context other admissible incidents in aggravation and showed gravity of D’S violent crim. conduct.
  • No error in not severing 1st and 2d degree murder counts where evidence cross-admissible and relevant to identity and intent.
  • Though DA plainly relying on D's priors to rebut his claim he acted under duress of cohort's threats, it exceeded purpose for which priors admitted; no prejudice where objection sustained and instructions given.
  • Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to sever death-penalty-eligible offense with noncapital crimes evidence in each was cross-admissible in separate trial.
  • In admission of other-crimes evidence, D either forfeited claim by failing to object or evidence was properly admitted against him.
  • Character evidence admissible when relevant to prove fact in issue.
  • Elements of offense in issue when D pleads not guilty.
  • Evidence of prior offense admissible if direct relationship between prior and element of charged offense.
  • Evidence of lack of bad character proper to show good reputation for that trait; high moral character evidence proper in sexual abuse case.
  • Test for admissibility of uncharged offenses.
  • Admissibility of evidence of uncharged offense depends upon 3-step analysis.
  • Evidence of prior crimes admissible where it logically tends to establish fact material for DA.
  • Abuse of discretion to deny D's motion to sever where evidence of indecent exposure had no tendency at all to show motive to commit sexual assault—incidents were entirely distinct and dissimilar with no apparent connection.
  • Trial court reasonably denied D's motion to sever counts of murdering his first and third wives since evidence as to each count would have been cross-admissible in separate trials re intent and identity.
  • "Truth-in-Evidence" provisions gave court discretion to allow brief testimony of prior, uncharged crime to corroborate V's recollection and testimony.
  • Evidence of D's gang affiliation properly admitted as directly relevant to material issue in gang-related shooting.
  • Evidence of uncharged fires not used to show D fit profile of serial arsonist where there was substantial evidence linking D to both charged and uncharged fires.
  • Where uncharged prior sex offenses offered to show D's lewd disposition toward prosecuting W, and there is corroborating evidence, no need to corroborate each offense separately.


    •