Can the prosecution introduce evidence of past bad acts to prove criminal disposition?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Molinar, E071698 (Cal. App. 2019):
The prosecution may not introduce evidence of a defendant's prior bad acts to prove a criminal disposition, but such evidence is admissible when "relevant to prove some [other] fact." (Evid. Code, 1101, subds. (a) & (b).) "The trial court has broad discretion in determining the relevance of evidence." (People v. Scheid (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1, 14.)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
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.
Other Questions
Does the use of evidence of criminal street gang activity by a defendant to establish a predicate offence in a prosecution for active participation in a criminal gang constitute prejudicial or prejudicial evidence? (California, United States of America)
What is the effect of prior criminal convictions on evidence of criminal activity in criminal proceedings? (California, United States of America)
Is evidence of uncharged crimes admissible to prove bad character or criminal disposition? (California, United States of America)
When a defendant is accused of a sexual offence in a criminal action in which he is also accused of another sexual offence, is evidence of his disposition to commit such crimes considered to be inadmissible under California Evidence Code section 1108? (California, United States of America)
Is there any error in instructing the jury that the prosecution does not need to prove motive but must prove specific intent to assist, promote, or further criminal conduct by gang members? (California, United States of America)
Is evidence of crimes committed by a defendant other than those charged admissible to prove criminal disposition or poor character? (California, United States of America)
Is evidence of uncharged sexual conduct admissible to prove a defendant has a criminal disposition or propensity? (California, United States of America)
Does the prosecution have to avoid using relevant, persuasive evidence to prove an element of a crime because that element might also be established through other evidence? (California, United States of America)
Does a criminal defendant have a right to be informed of exculpatory evidence and evidence that may be used to impeach prosecution witnesses? (California, United States of America)
When a piece of evidence in the possession of the prosecution is destroyed because the prosecution finds it necessary to consume the evidence in order to test it, does the destruction violate due process? (California, United States of America)
