CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Character and Reputation Evidence
......Impermissible Uses
13 Cards On This Topic:

Expert's testimony regarding workplace violence was "profile" evidence of defendant's guilt and amounted to improper character evidence under FRE 404(a)(1).

Evidence D's wife experienced abuse as a child, to show 3d party culpability for abuse of child here, properly excluded as improper propensity evidence; abuse here required no specialized techniques and not similar to wife's experience.

W's reputation for being dangerous not relevant to D's claim of self-defense where no evidence D knew of W's dangerousness or of his association with murder Vs and W had only seen D once and did not know his name.

Evidence of other crimes impermissibly admitted as evidence of D's propensity to commit similar crimes.

Court properly found D's offer to stipulate to prior rape in lieu of V's testimony did not show his good character but was self-serving attempt to lessen impact of rape evidence.

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

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.

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

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

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.

Error to allow the prosecution to impeach defendant with conduct underlying prior conviction where defendant did not open the door to such impeachment during his direct testimony.

Where appearance of judicial bias, unfairness colors entire record, P need not make affirm. showing of prejudice; test whether ct.'s comments would cause reasonable person to doubt ct.'s impartiality or lack confidence in fairness of proceedings.