California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Loy, S076175 (Cal. 2011):
Defendant complains the evidence bolstered an otherwise weak prosecution case. We disagree that the prosecution case was weak. The overall evidence of guilt was reasonably strong. But even if defendant were correct, the argument would not aid him. The supposed weakness of the rest of the case would be relevant to the question of prejudice if there were error, but it provides no reason to exclude this particularly probative evidence. Evidence of previous sexual offenses is relevant on the question of identity. (People v. Britt, supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at p. 506.) This remains true whatever the strength of the rest of the evidence.
Defendant relies heavily on two decisions. In one, People v. Abilez (2007) 41 Cal.4th 472, 501-502, we found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's exclusion of certain evidence under section 1108. That decision does not aid defendant. Because of the "broad discretion" trial courts have under section 1108
(People v. Falsetta, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 919), a finding of no abuse of discretion in one court's exclusion of evidence has no bearing on whether a different court abused its discretion in admitting evidence in a different trial.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.