(a)(1)Except as provided in subdivision (e) or (f), in a criminal action in which the defendant is accused of an offense involving domestic violence, evidence of the defendant’s commission of other domestic violence is not made inadmissible by Section 1101 if the evidence is not inadmissible pursuant to Section 352.
(2)Except as provided in subdivision (e) or (f), in a criminal action in which the defendant is accused of an offense involving abuse of an elder or dependent person, evidence of the defendant’s commission of other abuse of an elder or dependent person is not made inadmissible by Section 1101 if the evidence is not inadmissible pursuant to Section 352.
(3)Except as provided in subdivision (e) or (f) and subject to a hearing conducted pursuant to Section 352, which shall include consideration of any corroboration and remoteness in time, in a criminal action in which the defendant is accused of an offense involving child abuse, evidence of the defendant’s commission of child abuse is not made inadmissible by Section 1101 if the evidence is not inadmissible pursuant to Section 352. Nothing in this paragraph prohibits or limits the admission of evidence pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 1101.
(b)In an action in which evidence is to be offered under this section, the people shall disclose the evidence to the defendant, including statements of witnesses or a summary of the substance of any testimony that is expected to be offered, in compliance with the provisions of Section 1054.7 of the Penal Code.
(c)This section shall not be construed to limit or preclude the admission or consideration of evidence under any other statute or case law.
(d)As used in this section:
(1)“Abuse of an elder or dependent person” means physical or sexual abuse, neglect, financial abuse, abandonment, isolation, abduction, or other treatment that results in physical harm, pain, or mental suffering, the deprivation of care by a caregiver, or other deprivation by a custodian or provider of goods or services that are necessary to avoid physical harm or mental suffering.
(2)“Child abuse” means an act proscribed by Section 273d of the Penal Code.
(3)“Domestic violence” has the meaning set forth in Section 13700 of the Penal Code. Subject to a hearing conducted pursuant to Section 352, which shall include consideration of any corroboration and remoteness in time, “domestic violence” has the further meaning as set forth in Section 6211 of the Family Code, if the act occurred no more than five years before the charged offense.
(e)Evidence of acts occurring more than 10 years before the charged offense is inadmissible under this section, unless the court determines that the admission of this evidence is in the interest of justice.
(f)Evidence of the findings and determinations of administrative agencies regulating the conduct of health facilities licensed under Section 1250 of the Health and Safety Code is inadmissible under this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
265
cases (
109 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case:
People v. Fruits, 247 Cal. App. 4th 188 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).
People v. Fruits, 247 Cal. App. 4th 188 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 6× “” With exceptions not applicable here, Evidence Code section 1109, subdivision (a)(2), provides: “[I]n a criminal action in which the defendant is accused of an offense involving abuse of an elder or dependent person, evidence of the defendant’s commission of other abuse of an…”
Doe v. Busby, 661 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 6× “Doe cross-appeals that the district court erred by not granting habeas relief on the alternative ground that retroactive application of California Evidence Code § 1109 violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution.”
People v. Dallas, 165 Cal. App. 4th 940 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 9× “Evidence Code section 1109, subdivision (a)(1), as it stood on August 6, 2005, the date of the offenses, and as it stands now, provides: “[I]n a criminal action in which the defendant is accused of an offense involving domestic violence, evidence of the defendant’s commission of…”
Jensen v. Hernandez, 864 F. Supp. 2d 869 (E.D. Cal. 2012).
· cites it 10× “trial court made up its mind ‘in camera;’ ” (5) the prosecution “suppressed exculpatory evidence and allowed it to be destroyed;” (6) the prosecutor knowingly introduced perjured testimony at trial; (7) the trial court improperly denied petitioner compulsory process for…”
People v. Johnson, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 149 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 4× “Evidence Code Section 1109 Defendant contends the admission under Evidence Code section 1109, of evidence of prior acts for which he had been acquitted, violated due process by permitting the prosecutor to use evidence of prior acts of domestic violence to show a propensity to…”
Smith v. Roe, 232 F. Supp. 2d 1073 (C.D. Cal. 2002).
· cites it 19× “The trial court violated petitioner’s state and federal constitutional rights to equal protection by admitting evidence of his prior acts of domestic violence under California Evidence Code § 1109. [Pet. at 6; Ground 1.”
People v. Baker, 480 P.3d 49 (Cal. 2021).
“Defendant has preserved his argument that the admission of propensity evidence under section 1108 denied him due process, as well as his argument that the admission of propensity evidence under Evidence Code section 1109 denied him due process.”
People v. Rucker, 25 Cal. Rptr. 3d 62 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “(Evid. Code, §§ 1109, subd. (a)(1), 352.) “Domestic violence,” for the purposes of Evidence Code section 1109, is broadly defined as “abuse committed against an adult or a minor who is a spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or person with whom the suspect has…”
People v. Megown, 238 Cal. Rptr. 3d 911 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018).
“) Evidence Code section 1109 defines "domestic violence" by referencing Penal Code section 13700 and *919 Family Code section 6211.”
People v. Brown, 192 Cal. App. 4th 1222 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011).
“Section 1109 “Evidence of prior criminal acts is ordinarily inadmissible to show a defendant’s disposition to commit such acts.”
People v. Poplar, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2139 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “pursuant to *1136 Evidence Code section 1109. 4 The prosecution argued that the evidence of the incidents with Pamela and Shawndel involved defendant’s assaulting the victims, which “should be admitted to establish that he has a propensity or disposition to violence against…”
People v. Garcia, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5033 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “) Evidence Code section 1109 was enacted in 1996 and permits the introduction of evidence of the commission of prior acts of domestic violence in a criminal action charging the defendant with an offense involving domestic violence.”
— Cal. Evidence Code § 1109(a) — 3 cases
Doe v. Busby, 661 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2011).
“Doe cross-appeals that the district court erred by not granting habeas relief on the alternative ground that retroactive application of California Evidence Code § 1109 violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution.”
— Cal. Evidence Code § 1109(a)(1) — 2 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.