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 Knowledge
 19 Cards On This Topic:
  • Character evidence admissible to prove knowledge.
  • Evidence of other crimes admissible to prove fact in issue. (Fed. Rules of Evid.)
  • Evidence of prior conviction for heroin importing admissible in meth smuggling case to show knowledge of smuggling trade and methods.
  • Abuse of discretion under EC 1101(b) and EC 352 to conclude evidence D had registered firearms was relevant to show D's knowledge a charged firearm was stolen.
  • Given limiting instruction and strong evidence of guilt, no error to admit D's prior drug offense; trial ct.'s decision on whether to force DA to accept a stipulation in lieu of such evidence is within its discretion.
  • Circumstances of D's prior car theft were sufficiently similar to his charged motorcycle theft to show knowledge, intent, and common plan.
  • Evidence sufficient to find true gang benefit allegation and street terrorism where all required elements fulfilled, especially showing of D's willingness to shoot at a Sureño for no good reason.
  • Prior DUI conviction properly admitted as relevant to vehicular manslaughter charge because it put D on notice of the consequences of driving with extreme recklessness.
  • No abuse of discretion in excluding corporation's conviction and plea agreement offered to impeach its CEO and show motive and knowledge; no showing CEO committed a crime, etc. per EC 1101, and EC 788 did not apply.
  • Evidence of D's previous driving misconduct involving use of alcohol was relevant and admissible in prosecution for vehicular murder.
  • Statement D made re sometime heroin use, after bindle found in police car, admissible on issue of D's knowledge of nature of heroin, an element of the offense. [Evid. Code §1101; Evid. Code §352.)
  • No abuse of discretion to admit limited evidence of malpractice judgment against D and evidence of prior death caused by D's methods; relevant to prosecution for similar deaths and D's subjective awareness.
  • At trial for murder of stepson, D's prior conduct (burning stepson's feet and causing daughter's quadriplegia) admissible to show lack of accident & D's knowledge of probable consequences.
  • Evidence of uncharged theft of dragster properly admitted because it tended to show D's knowledge that dragster differential he tried to sell was stolen property (both stolen in same incident).
  • Evidence of prior similar accidents admissible to prove defective condition, knowledge, or cause of an accident if circumstances similar and not too remote.
  • Evidence of other narcotics offenses may be introduced to establish D's knowledge that he was in possession of narcotics.
  • When attempting to introduce prior acts evidence, government must establish requisite link between knowledge gained by prior and knowledge at issue in charged act.
  • When evidence of prior act offered to prove knowledge, prior act need not be similar to charged act so long as it makes existence of D's knowledge more probable.
  • Cases discussing various aspects of use of prior bad acts to show knowledge.


    •