ONCALL
...Evidence
......Character and Reputation Evidence
59 Cards On This Topic:

No error in admitting gang evidence as to motive where DA's theory was that D killed V as a prerequisite to becoming a Mexican Mafia member.

Neither EC §1108 nor Villatoro required the court to conduct a sua sponte EC §352 inquiry before admitting testimony about D's uncharged sexual offense.

D failed to preserve his claim of DA error in violating the Racial Justice Act by noting D's Facebook page referenced his interest in white women.

Juvenile ct.'s jurisdictional finding, based on F engaging in DV, lacked substantial evidence where only one instance of past DV and no evidence of ongoing DV or likelihood of reoccurrence.

Past RO issued to protect mother and Cs was not indicative of a current DV relationship between mother and father at the time of the hearings.

As prior offense and instant charged offenses involved assaults against adult women during romantic relationship, the prior conviction was probative as to D's propensity and properly admitted under EC §1109.

In EC §1108 and §1109 cases, DA may introduce documentary ••evidence•• to prove not only the fact of a conviction, but the commission of the underlying offense.

In making traffic stop of Black D, knowing only the location of the stop and the clothing D was wearing, did Officer exhibit implied bias on the basis of race?

Employee complaints about P's behavior were inadmissible character evidence as the complaints' substance had minimal relevance to P's credibility.

EC §1106(e) ••may•• permit admission of evidence that would otherwise be excluded under §1106(a), but admissibility is subject to EC §783 procedures and very careful review under EC §352.

Evidence of V's visit to sister offered to show propensity and was inadmissible hearsay, its nonhearsay use was not relevant, and court erred in allowing it; error harmless given abundant evidence of D's guilt.

Evidence of D's murder of another in a drug deal properly admitted as motive similar to instant murder and gruesome photos were not that prejudicial.

D's TX murder of a drug dealer who said he'd report him to police was properly admitted under EC §1101(b) to show D thought CA drug dealer would do the same.

Evidence insufficient to show D participated in a conspiracy to kill rival gang members where it didn't show he had specific intent to agree to the conspiracy and to commit the killings

DA did not commit reversible error re character or race in jury voir dire when he partially told story of the scorpion and the frog.

The circumstance that the uncharged act occurred after the charged offense does not necessarily place the uncharged act outside the ambit of Evid. Code §1101 (b).

By offering expert opinion on D's neuropsychiatric condition, the defense put in issue aspects of his behavior that shed light on the existence of that condition.

Similarities between crimes sufficient to support an inference of common scheme.

The "doctrine of chances": Evidence of prior acts to negate the claim of accident or innocent motive.

Gang membership evidence was highly probative and properly admitted.

D’s threats to kill a deputy properly admitted in the penalty phase in aggravation under section 190.3, factor (b).

Residential burglary based on an intent to steal theory is an act of domestic violence for which prior acts of domestic violence are admissible under Evid. Code §1109.

D's previous acts sufficiently similar to the charged crime to permit introduction of prior bad acts.

Prior to a prior bad act’s being admissible, the trial court acts as a gatekeeper to determine by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of the prior uncharged act and D’s connection to it.

Evidence of habit or custom is admissible to prove conduct on a specific occasion in conformity with the habit or custom.

Defendant's statements about other crimes were properly admitted to show knowledge or identity.

Evidence of a plaintiff’s sexual conduct — voluntary or involuntary — may not be admitted under Evid. Code §1106, but may be admitted for impeachment.

D's prior acts involving the same victims could be relevant and admissible to prove motive in that the acts showed D's ongoing animus to Vs.

Domestic violence includes behaviors listed in Fam. Code §6211; it is not limited to those listed in Pen. Code §13700.

D’s prior uncharged acts were sufficiently similar for admissibility.

Evid. Code §1109 does not require corroboration to admit prior acts of domestic violence.

Evidence of conduct at other properties was necessary to show the landlords had a pattern and practice of mistreating their tenants.

Evidence of risk factors, and that mothers satisfying some number of these risk factors are more likely to develop postpartum depression and psychosis, amounted to impermissible character evidence.

Evidence of the habits and culture of criminal street gangs is irrelevant as D was neither a member nor associate of a criminal street gang.

Four prior robberies were admissible under Evid. Code §1101 (b) as evidence of defendant’s intent regarding attempted robbery.

A codefendant may introduce propensity evidence tending to show a defendant committed the crime instead of himself or herself.

Evidence of child abuse which occurred more than 10 years earlier properly admitted because it showed D's propensity to commit abuse when under stress.

Section 1101(b) should have been used to establish a motive to commit the crime itself, not an act subsequent to the crime.

In narcotics prosecutions, evidence of prior drug convictions is relevant to prove knowledge of the narcotic nature of the substance.

When a defense character witness has testified to the witness’s own opinion, based on the witness’s perceptions, it is proper to ask, “if you knew.”

A defense character witness may be cross-examined on acts of conduct by defendant that are reasonably believed to have been committed or the reports of their commission have been generally circulated.

Possession of pornography is properly admitted when its relevance to motive or intent is not outweighed by undue prejudice.

Evidence of a similar crime properly admitted to prove D's state of mind for the charged offenses.

Evidence of a similar crime properly admitted to prove D acted in accordance with a common design or plan.

May not use evidence related to charged offense to establish D’s culpability related to an uncharged act.

Trial court performs a gatekeeping function: if D’s connection to the uncharged act is not proved, the evidence is irrelevant to prove the EC §1101(b) facts for which it is being offered.

When defendant claimed self-defense, evidence of victim's violent character was circumstantial evidence of how he acted at the scene.

Evidence of gang membership properly admitted where it is relevant to an issue of motive or intent.

Facts from investigative report on racial discrimination and list of gender discrimination complaints made to state agency improperly admitted as character and reputation evidence in gender discrimination trial.

Trial ct. properly admitted evidence of an uncharged 2013 domestic violence incident against husband charged with two counts of first degree murder of wife's parents.

Evidence of defendant's 1994 armed robbery with co-defendant was properly admitted to show he had knowledge of co-defendant's violent tendencies.

Evidence of defendant's prior rape convictions was properly admitted under EC §§1108(a) and 352, and its admission did not violate D's due process rights under the federal Constitution.

Defendant's prior conviction for assault on wife involving choking admissible under EC §1101(b) to show D's intent to choke V during rape-murder.

Evidence of other sexual offenses admissible to show propensity to commit charged sex crimes; other crimes relevant especially where they shared common characteristics with charged crimes.

Evidence of defendant's prior conviction for gun possession improperly admitted in his trial for similar offense where it was not relevant to demonstrate a fact other than character or propensity.

Motion to compel arbitration properly denied where defendant failed to show it initialed arbitration clause through custom and habit evidence.

McKinney does not bar the use of sexual misconduct evidence to establish a defendant's propensity to commit such crimes.

Defendant's uncharged prior acts of DV against victim properly admitted to prove crimes against victim's mother where D threatened her at gunpoint in victim's presence.

Evidence of acts of DV against victim that were more than ten years old properly admitted at trial in the interest of justice.