CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Character and Reputation Evidence
......To Prove Conduct & Prior Bad Acts
.........Admis. When Relv to Prove Fact In Issue
............Evidence Code §1108 (a)
47 Cards On This Topic:

If D accused of sexual offense, evidence of D's commission of other sexual offenses admissible despite Evid. Code §1101.

CA court's admitting EC 1108 evidence of prior uncharged acts where charged offenses committed before statute effective, did not violate Ex Post Facto Clause.

No abuse of discretion to admit evidence of D’s later-committed sex offenses in CO under EC §1108, where D did not overcome the presumption in favor of admissibility.

At trial for kidnap, molest and murder of 8-yr.-old, court did not err in admitting evidence of D's incestuous conduct with his little sister and his rental of adult-oriented material on the day of the murder.

Evidence D sexually molested 3 other girls properly admitted under EC 1108 where he was charged with lewd and lascivious acts on child under 14 and murder w/spec. circ. of murder while committing lewd and lascivious acts.

Evidence of prior sexual offense against V1 properly admitted in retrial as to sexual acts against V2 as relevant to multiple victim allegation; EC §352 analysis conducted.

Nothing in the language of EC 1108 restricts it to uncharged offenses—as its clear purpose is to permit consideration of evidence of D’s propensity to commit sexual offenses, charged offenses may be considered as well. [Mod. CALCRIM No. 1191.]

Past sex offenses admissible under EC 1108 to show D had a predisposition to commit sexual offenses here: sex offenses need not be similar as long as the charged offense and prior crimes are sex offenses as defined by the section.

At trial for sexual assault and murder of 12-yr.-old niece, court did not err in admitting evidence of D's prior sexual assaults on a 16-yr.-old girl and 32-yr.-old woman.

D tried for 1st degree felony murder, with PC 261 rape as underlying felony, is accused of a "sexual offense" under EC 1108 and other sexual assaults properly admitted under EC 1101.

No abuse of discretion in concluding the probative value of evidence of D's prior rape outweighed its prejudicial effect in establishing D's propensity to commit charged sexual offense. (EC 1108.)

Trial court correctly admitted evidence of rape/murder D's prior sex crimes against former girlfriend under EC 1108.

Admonition adequately ensured jury would not use fleeting references to D's parole and statutory rape conviction as propensity evidence and thus their admission, even if error, was harmless.

DA's burden of proving all elements of charged offenses included threshold showing that the acts that caused V's death were done intentionally, not accidentally, and D's prior acts of violence against his children were relevant.

D's prior acts of violence against victim indisputably relevant to showing intention and absence of accident and properly admitted under EC 1101(b).

Co-D's 1973 juvenile adjudication for attempted unlawful intercourse with minor properly excluded under EC 1101 and 1108 as too remote in time and not sufficiently similar to instant charge of sodomy and murder of 68-yr. old woman.

Consistent with prior state and federal case law, Evid. Code §1108 not violative of D’s due process rights.

Admissibility of a 1974 incident of sexual misconduct under EC 1108 does not hinge on whether there is sufficient independent evidence to prove that a sexual act occurred in the current case.

D's 1974 sexual misconduct properly admitted where striking similarities between prior misconduct and current crimes balanced out the remoteness. [EC 1108(a), EC 352.]

In case of possession of child porn video, admission of D's conviction of a single molestation of minor daughter properly admitted under EC 1108 and EC 352.

At D's trial for continuous sexual abuse of his minor granddaughter, court properly admitted evidence of similar uncharged offenses against his minor daughters. (EC §352; §1108.)

D's prior sex crime properly admitted per EC 1108 and EC 352 where, in both cases, D exploited the vulnerabilities of V and committed similar sex offenses—the precise type of evidence anticipated in enacting EC 1108.

No abuse of discretion in admitting evidence of D's prior similar uncharged sexual offenses against 2 children in Mex. under EC 1108, over his EC 352 objections.

Where uncharged sex offenses committed against one V in another state and supported by same witness testimony as charged crimes, the additional evidence would not change jury's perception of D and was properly admitted.

Harmless error to admit as propensity evidence under EC 1108 D's uncharged, non-sexual conduct where not reasonably probable the jury would have acquitted D even if it had been excluded.

D's uncharged sex acts were similar enough to the charged offenses to have considerable probative value on the issue of lack of consent.

No abuse of discretion in admitting D's prior sex crimes against adult women re lewd conduct with 7-yr.-old where evidence highly probative of D's intent to touch V for sexual gratification, dispelling notion touching was accidental.

No abuse of discretion in admitting evidence of similar 1990 rape under EC 1101(b) and EC 1108 where risk of undue prejudice did not substantially outweigh its substantial probative value under EC 352.

No error in admitting, under EC 1108, D's prior bad acts with teenagers where highly probative of his motive and intent, at issue in trial, and evidence more probative than prejudicial.

EC 1108 not unconstitutional as applied to nurse/anesthetist accused of battery during operation, and court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence under that section.

Trial court did not err in admitting into evidence D's prior sex offenses [EC §1108] and in instructing jury on their use.

DA may argue in subsequent prosecution that D's prior conduct was a sexual offense when that conduct resulted in a conviction for a crime that was not a sexual offense.

Evidence of D’s prior rapes of prostitutes properly admitted at murder trial re motive, intent and identity; as D not accused of EC 1108 sex offense, error to allow this evidence to prove propensity to kill V.

No error in admitting documentary evidence rather than live testimony as propensity evidence under Evid. Code §1108.

There was sufficient independent evidence that clearly and convincingly corroborated V's allegations under EC 803 (g) [uncharged sexual misconduct].

Evidence of other sex crimes committed by D properly admitted under EC 1108 and People v. Falsetta.

In sex offense case where court admitted EC 1108 propensity evidence that D committed an uncharged sex offense, reversible error to exclude admission of evidence of acquittal.

Evidence of uncharged sexual offense committed subsequent to charged offense was admissible pursuant to EC 1108.

Evid. Code §1108 doesn't allow E to opine about D's sexual proclivities during DA's case in chief, but permits DA to prove D's sexual propensity through specific instances of conduct.

Evid. Code §1108 not unconstitutional.

Evid. Code §1108 doesn't alter Evid. Code §1102's rule that opinion evidence about D's character inadmissible unless D first places his character in issue.

Court reaffirms that uncharged sexual offenses admissible under Evid. Code §1108 if not inadmissible under Evid. Code §352 and that Evid. Code §1108 is constitutional.

When DA introduces Evid. Code §1108 evidence of other sexual offenses, D may introduce evidence of specific instances of his good behavior under similar circumstances.

Evidence of uncharged sexual misconduct properly admitted to corroborate child victim's abuse allegations.

Evidence of prior sexual molestations of young female relatives properly admitted under Evid. Code §1108 and Evid. Code §352.

With Evid. Code §352 check on admission of evidence of uncharged sex offenses in sex crimes prosecutions, Evid. Code §1108 does not violate Due Process.

Character evidence and EC §1108.