California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from The People v. John Paul Nelson, D057195, D057198, No. BAF003133 (Cal. App. 2010):
Evidence of the defendant's misconduct that is not charged in the current case is generally inadmissible for purposes of showing the defendant's bad character or propensity to commit crimes. (Evid. Code, 1101, subd. (a); People v. Scheer (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1017.) The rationale for excluding uncharged crimes evidence is based on the danger that the jury will convict merely because of the defendant's criminal propensity or bad character regardless of whether guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. (See People v. Alcala (1984) 36 Cal.3d 604, 631.) However, uncharged crimes evidence may be admitted for the limited purpose of proving material facts apart from criminal propensity, such as motive or intent. (Evid. Code, 1101, subd. (b); People v. Scheer, supra, at p. 1017.)
Uncharged crimes evidence may be admissible to prove intent if the conduct during the uncharged and current crimes is sufficiently similar to support a rational inference that the defendant harbored the same intent in each instance. (People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380, 402.) Motive is an intermediate fact that may be probative of an ultimate issue such as intent or identity. (People v. Scheer, supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at p. 1017.) The uncharged crimes evidence may be admissible to show motive if the uncharged and charged offenses, even though involving dissimilar crimes, share common features that tend to show the defendant had common reasons for committing the crimes.
Page 24
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.