California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from The People v. Mistler, C062054, No. CRF046307 (Cal. App. 2010):
Evidence Code section 1108 creates an exception to Evidence Code section 1101's prohibition against propensity evidence for sexual offense cases. (People v. Escudero (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 302, 309-310.) Under Evidence Code section 1108, when a criminal defendant is accused of a sexual offense, "evidence of the defendant's commission of another sexual offense or offenses" is not excluded under section 1101 if not inadmissible under Evidence Code section 352. (Evid. Code, 1108, subd. (a).)
Evidence Code section 352 gives a court the discretion to "exclude evidence if 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." A trial court's ruling under Evidence Code section 352 is reviewed for abuse of discretion and will "'not be disturbed on appeal except on a showing that the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice. [Citations.]' [Citation.]" (People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1124-1125.)
Page 13
Under Evidence Code section 352, a trial court must engage in a careful weighing process before admitting propensity evidence. "Rather than admit or exclude every sex offense a defendant commits, trial judges must consider such factors as its nature, relevance, and possible remoteness, the degree of certainty of its commission and the likelihood of confusing, misleading, or distracting the jurors from their main inquiry, its similarity to the charged offense, its likely prejudicial impact on the jurors, the burden on the defendant in defending against the uncharged offense, and the availability of less prejudicial alternatives to its outright admission, such as admitting some but not all of the defendant's other sex offenses, or excluding irrelevant though inflammatory details surrounding the offense." (People v. Falsetta (1999) 21 Cal.4th 903, 921.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.