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 Plan; Common M.O.
 30 Cards On This Topic:
  • Character evidence admissible to prove plan.
  • Evidence of other crimes admissible to prove fact in issue. (Fed. Rules of Evid.)
  • Evidence of 84-yr.-old's rape was cross-admissible in murder case of an 82-yr-old to prove common plan and intent where crimes were committed in a short span of time (6 weeks) in close physical proximity against two older women living alone.
  • No abuse of discretion in admitting uncharged murder of another older woman under circs.similar to charged crimes to establish identity, common design or plan, and intent.
  • Evidence of V's murder during burglary and rape was cross-admissible, as to intent, plan and identity, with evidence of D's many other similar crimes; joinder presented no prejudice to D.
  • D's prior crimes against female strangers were sufficiently similar to Polly's case to provide evidence of common scheme or plan and intent to commit sexual assault or lewd act and burglary.
  • Court of Appeal erred in finding trial ct. abused its discretion by failing to sever charges of 2 similar murders of homeless men where forensic and testimonial evidence tied D to both crime scenes and Vs.
  • Evidence of D's financial dealings with other women he met at gym, his assault on one and rapes of 3 others, showed remarkably similar pattern, and overall evidence was sufficient to permit jury to find D intended to rape murder V.
  • Joinder of LA and Orange County murders proper where connected together in commission by common element of substantial importance—cumulative evidence amply connected charges per PC 790(b).
  • No abuse of discretion in refusing to sever trials given the classic situation in favor of a joint trial, given that Ds were charged with common crimes involving common events and victims.
  • Evidence of yet unadjudicated murders properly admitted on issues of identity, intent and common plan to rob and kill victims.
  • Evidence of D's prior attempts to have W help her steal money properly admitted as relevant to motive or common plan, showing D's tendency to use others to commit crimes and her desperate need for money.
  • Evidence of similar paraquat poisonings of D’s mother and 2 wives was relevant to identity and to show a common scheme or plan.
  • Court did not abuse discretion in denying D's motion to sever multiple murder charges; evidence cross-admissible and offense sufficiently similar to support inference of common plan.
  • Uncharged conduct evid. admissible to show common design or plan if sufficient common features with charged offenses to support inference both are manifestations of common design or plan.
  • Nature and degree of similarity (between uncharged misconduct and the charged offense) required in order to establish a common design or plan.
  • Evidence tending to show D committed similar crime soon after charged offense admissible to show common design or plan.
  • No error in admitting D's prior home invasion robbery where main purpose of both crimes was to obtain drugs, the modus operandi used by accomplices to gain admission into the homes was the same and D was the "mastermind."
  • D who murdered her two babies in different counties is subject to single trial per PC 790 where evidence supported GJ's implicit finding of Alcala's "common element of substantial importance," connected together as in PC 954.
  • At dentist's trial for choking difficult child, court erred in admitting dissimilar, unrelated incidents with others to show common design; evidence demonstrated character trait, prohibited by EC 1101.
  • At trial for taking employer's computer source code, court did not err in admitting evidence of D's prior misconduct in possessing source code from a previous employer.
  • Prior acts of molestation properly admitted both as propensity evidence and to show common scheme or plan; evidence highly relevant to defense attempt to prove Vs liars or mistaken.
  • Evidence re prior child molest admissible in similar lewd conduct case to prove common design or plan; Ewoldt relevance factors met.
  • Evidence of commission of offense other than that charged is admissible if relevant and does not merely show criminal disposition.
  • Uncharged offenses not properly admitted where DA failed to show existence of plan, uncharged offenses were part of plan, uncharged offense not cumulative or that probative value outweighed by prejudice.
  • Evidence of Scout Leader's prior bad acts and uncharged sex crimes with Scouts in his troop admissible to show D's common scheme and plan.
  • May attempt to prove conduct on specified occasion with prior instances of conduct when relevant to prove plan consisting of modus operandi or distinctive method of committing crime.
  • May not cross-examine witness on collateral matter for purpose of impeaching testimony with subsequent witness.
  • Error not to admit evidence that key DA witness made false charges against another and stole property.
  • Cases discussing various aspects of the admission of other evidence bearing on the accused's modus operandi.


    •