Can a defense in a criminal case use character evidence to prove that the victim was violent at the time of the crime?

"Evidence Code section 1103 authorizes the defense in a criminal case to offer evidence of the victim's character to prove his conduct at the time of the charged crime. Consequently, in a prosecution for a homicide or an assaultive crime where self-defense is raised, evidence of the violent character of the victim is admissible to show that the victim was the aggressor." (People v. Shoemaker (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 442, 446.) "It is now permissible under section 1103 of the Evidence Code to prove the aggressive and violent character by specific acts of the victim on third persons." (People v. Rowland (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 790, 797.) However, Evidence Code section 352 permits the trial court "to exclude evidence if in the court's discretion 'its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.' Like all proffered evidence, character evidence is subject to exclusion under that section." (People v. Shoemaker, at p. 448.) We review the trial court's ruling for abuse of discretion, and will uphold it absent a clear showing of abuse. (Id. at p. 449.)

Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Section 352 "empowers courts to prevent criminal trials from degenerating into nitpicking wars of attrition over collateral credibility issues." (People v. Wheeler (1992) 4 Cal.4th 284, 296.) Given the conflict in the testimony about Herrador's actual conduct in the 1999 incident, the trial court could reasonably conclude that to permit both witnesses to testify would risk embroiling the

Page 16