CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Character and Reputation Evidence
......To Prove Conduct & Prior Bad Acts
.........Admis. When Relv to Prove Fact In Issue
............Admissible to Show Intent
 52 Cards On This Topic:
  • Character evidence admissible to prove intent.
  • Evidence of other crimes admissible to prove fact in issue. (Fed. Rules of Evid.)
  • Trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of D's subsequent, similar burglaries for the limited purpose of proving his intent to burglarize murder V's home.
  • Evidence D possessed child porn on computer, and just before the murder printed a story of an adult male having sex with young children, was probative of D's intent to commit lewd acts on the young murder V.
  • Any error in allowing jury to consider evidence of D's attack upon another man an hour before he murdered V was harmless.
  • Ds intending to attack V, aiding each other in raping her, and being members of the criminal street gang was substantial evidence they acted with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist gang members in that criminal conduct.
  • Sufficient evidence permitted an inference that D set V on fire with the intent to inflict extreme pain (torture) for the purpose of revenge and CALJIC No. 8.24 not unconstitutionally vague.
  • In hate-murder, court properly admitted evidence D committed 2 very similar uncharged robberies to prove D intended to rob V during course of murdering him.
  • No reasonable likelihood instructions as a whole led jury to believe DA was not required to prove all elements of 1st degree robbery murder and attempted robbery special circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • Prior threat to kill a deputy by shooting him in back of head was "manifestly admissible to show defendant's state of mind" when he fatally shot another deputy in back of head.
  • Court did not err in instructing jury it could consider whether D’s refusal to remove his sunglasses as court ordered so witness could identify him showed a consciousness of guilt.
  • No abuse of discretion in admitting D's recorded desire to sexually assault and murder woman he saw at rest stop as evidence of his intent during his encounter with woman at another rest stop at whom he brandished gun.
  • Harmless error, if any, to admit D's prior instances of cohabitant abuse against girlfriend he was convicted of later murdering by torture.
  • Assuming D preserved objection, and his frank admission of his own dangerous tendencies when drinking was inadmissible under EC 1101 as opinion of character, no miscarriage of justice given other evidence.
  • D's using "good Samaritan ploy" to rob and try to kidnap stranded female motorist was sufficiently similar to his later conduct against murder V to support inference of similar intent.
  • D's refusal to provide hair and blood samples in violation of prior court order is admissible evidence of consciousness of guilt, and not violative of EC §§1101 and 352.
  • Evidence of prior, similar killing supported permissible inference that second killing was intended and premeditated.
  • No abuse of discretion and no constit'l violation in admitting uncharged crimes evidence similar to charged crime and relevant to D's intent to forcibly obtain cash from Vs.
  • Court within its discretion in admitting evidence of D's planned escape, w/limiting instruction as evidence of planned escape permits inference of consciousness of guilt.
  • Probative value of evidence of Trailside Killer's uncharged murders on intent and premeditation clearly outweighed potential for prejudice.
  • Evidence that D urinated on spot V's head had lain, suggested contempt for Vs and indifference to actions, and admissible to present more balanced picture of his personality.
  • Nature and degree of similarity (between uncharged misconduct and the charged offense) required in order to establish intent.
  • Evidence tending to show D committed similar crime soon after charged offense not admissible to show intent.
  • Magazines and photos depicting clothed and unclothed youths properly admitted under Evid. Code §1101 (b) as evidence of D's motive and intent to perform lewd act on V.
  • Uncharged offenses were substantially similar and thus properly used to establish intent and motive; less similarity required to prove intent than required to prove identity.
  • Evidence of D's whereabouts and activities after crimes but before arrest indicating flight and evasion, was highly probative of participation in crimes and consciousness of guilt.
  • Evidence D possessed gun and threatened to kill any policeman who got in his way goes to intent, premeditation and deliberation re later shooting of officer.
  • No error in admitting prior robbery where, though not particularly similar to charged robbery, both contained the intent to steal from Vs selected by D and court properly exercised EC 352 balancing test.
  • Admitting evidence of D's prior uncharged threats was proper where they were not "cumulative," and were highly probative to show D had committed similar distinctive acts of misconduct against similar Vs under similar circumstances.
  • No abuse of discretion in admitting evidence of D's "ptcruzers" online chat room statements where pertinent to the charged child sex offenses and probative value greatly outweighed any prejudicial effect.
  • DA's E's testimony, that D's text messages to people other than the prostitute Dakota were consistent with pimping, was relevant to rebut the defense that Dakota was only D’s girlfriend—a nonpropensity basis for relevance.
  • Evidence of D's statements that as a teen she would assault rival gang members and their infants at the mall properly admitted as both charged crimes and mall incidents occurred while D was a teen and consisted of hostile acts to others.
  • Sexually explicit text messages and photos D sent to V were properly admitted as relevant to guilt, showed his intent, his prurient interest in his nieces and corroborated their testimony that he acted in a sexual manner toward them.
  • No error in admitting evidence of similar, prior garage burglary to show D had the intent to steal when he entered V's garage.
  • Reversible error not to allow, on issue of employer's intent under EC 1101(b), "me too" evidence of his gender bias in the form of harassing women employees other than P.
  • Reasonable jury could infer that D specifically intended for V's murder to promote his gang's criminal activities by intimidating neighborhood residents, and retaliating against another gang for claiming his gang's territory.
  • Just as child, spousal, and animal abuse can be committed by a course of conduct rather than a single act, so can the crime of torture.
  • Fact that D previously committed drive-by shooting, under circs showing gang-related purposes, helped show he likely committed the instant drive-by shooting for gang-related purposes.
  • Prior parking lot kidnap/robberies sufficiently similar to charged offense to be admitted on issue of intent.
  • When uncharged offense is introduced to prove intent, DA need not show same quantum of "similarity" as when used to prove identity; only substantial similarity required.
  • After evidence of D's gang ties and activity properly admitted re motive and intent, proper to permit DA to present "entire picture" of intra-gang rivalry.
  • Corpus delicti rule not available to evidence of prior crimes not offered to prove that D committed them, but rather, solely to show D's state of mind at time of charged offense.
  • Evidence of prior crimes properly admitted to show both identity and intent.
  • Willful suppression of evidence admissible to show consciousness of guilt.
  • Distinctive similarity between 2 crimes not necessarily required when admitted solely for relevance to intent as opposed to identity.
  • D's prior threat admissible to show intent where evidence brings actual victim within scope of threat.
  • Evidence of uncharged murder properly admitted where lewd intent and intent to kill at issue.
  • Prior uncharged sexual acts properly admitted to show intent towards witness, even where D's intent and identity not at issue.
  • Evidence of uncharged similar crimes properly admitted to show intent when D specifically places intent in issue.
  • Error to exclude evidence of prior drug possession and sale convictions at D's trial on charges of intent to distribute and possession with intent to distribute; relevant to material issue of intent.
  • Evidence of prior use/sale of narcotics properly admitted in drug case to show intent, knowledge & absence of mistake or accident (FRE 404(b)).
  • Cases discussing various aspects of use of prior bad acts to show intent.


    •