Is prior misconduct evidence used to assess the credibility of a witness?

Defendant contends the court's instruction that the jury could consider the evidence for purposes of evaluating defendant's credibility was extremely prejudicial and rendered his trial unfair. For several reasons we reject the argument. First, defendant's counsel did not object to the instruction at trial. Moreover, defendant's argument equates the use of prior misconduct evidence for credibility purposes to inadmissible propensity evidence. But while the latter purpose is clearly prohibited, prior misconduct evidence may be admissible when offered for the purpose of evaluating witness credibility.³ (Evid. Code, 1101, subd. (c) ["Nothing in this section affects the admissibility of evidence offered to support or attack the credibility of a witness."]; see People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 931 ["A witness may be impeached with any prior conduct involving moral turpitude whether or not it resulted in a felony conviction, subject to the trial court's exercise of discretion under Evidence Code section 352."].) Further, as noted, the court

Page 18

expressly instructed the jury not to use evidence of the Mallory H. incident to conclude defendant has a bad character or was disposed to commit the crime. We presume the jury followed these instructions, and no evidence in the record suggests otherwise. (People v. Harris (2013) 57 Cal.4th 804, 842.)