9 California opinions name it 2 courts 1955–2010 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re Cheryl H.green2 sentences1992The general exclusionary rule for character evidence in a civil case appears in Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (a), providing in pertinent part: “[E]vidence of a person’s character or a trait of his or her character (whether in the form of an opinion, evidence of reputation, or evidence of specific instances of his or her conduct) is inadmissible when offered to prove his or her conduct on a specified occasion.” (See 1 Witkin, op. cit. supra, § 325, p. 299.) 5 This rule has been applied in the juvenile dependency context to disallow the use of inferences drawn by an expert psychiatris 1992The general exclusionary rule for character evidence in a civil case appears in Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (a), providing in pertinent part: “[E]vidence of a person’s character or a trait of his or her character (whether in the form of an opinion, evidence of reputation, or evidence of specific instances of his or her conduct) is inadmissible when offered to prove his or her conduct on a specified occasion.” (See 1 Witkin, op. cit. supra, § 325, p. 299.) 5 This rule has been applied in the juvenile dependency context to disallow the use of inferences drawn by an expert psychiatris | 2 | 2 |
In Re Dorothy I.green2 sentences1992(In re Dorothy I. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 1154, 1158-1159 [ 209 Cal.Rptr. 5 ].) To address these arguments, we first outline the general exclusionary rule for character evidence to prove conduct on a specified occasion. 1992(In re Dorothy I. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 1154, 1158-1159 [ 209 Cal.Rptr. 5 ].) To address these arguments, we first outline the general exclusionary rule for character evidence to prove conduct on a specified occasion. | 2 | 2 |
Buttimer v. Alexisgreen2 sentences1986Penal Code section 1538.5 does not require its application to subsequent prosecutions on different charges.” (Buttimer v. Alexis (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 754, 762 [ 194 Cal.Rptr. 603 ].) Indeed, the state’s high court has found it “absurd” to suppose that “the Legislature intended [section 1538.5’s above-noted] subdivision (d) to serve as a general exclusionary rule making all illegally obtained evidence inadmissible; ... its purpose is considerably more modest.” (People v. Belleci (1979) 24 Cal.3d 879, 888 [ 157 Cal.Rptr. 503 , 598 P.2d 473 ].) We recognize that in the above-noted case of People 1986Penal Code section 1538.5 does not require its application to subsequent prosecutions on different charges.” (Buttimer v. Alexis (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 754, 762 [ 194 Cal.Rptr. 603 ].) Indeed, the state’s high court has found it “absurd” to suppose that “the Legislature intended [section 1538.5’s above-noted] subdivision (d) to serve as a general exclusionary rule making all illegally obtained evidence inadmissible; ... its purpose is considerably more modest.” (People v. Belleci (1979) 24 Cal.3d 879, 888 [ 157 Cal.Rptr. 503 , 598 P.2d 473 ].) We recognize that in the above-noted case of People | 1 | 2 |
People v. Bellecigreen2 sentences1986Penal Code section 1538.5 does not require its application to subsequent prosecutions on different charges.” (Buttimer v. Alexis (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 754, 762 [ 194 Cal.Rptr. 603 ].) Indeed, the state’s high court has found it “absurd” to suppose that “the Legislature intended [section 1538.5’s above-noted] subdivision (d) to serve as a general exclusionary rule making all illegally obtained evidence inadmissible; ... its purpose is considerably more modest.” (People v. Belleci (1979) 24 Cal.3d 879, 888 [ 157 Cal.Rptr. 503 , 598 P.2d 473 ].) We recognize that in the above-noted case of People 1986Penal Code section 1538.5 does not require its application to subsequent prosecutions on different charges.” (Buttimer v. Alexis (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 754, 762 [ 194 Cal.Rptr. 603 ].) Indeed, the state’s high court has found it “absurd” to suppose that “the Legislature intended [section 1538.5’s above-noted] subdivision (d) to serve as a general exclusionary rule making all illegally obtained evidence inadmissible; ... its purpose is considerably more modest.” (People v. Belleci (1979) 24 Cal.3d 879, 888 [ 157 Cal.Rptr. 503 , 598 P.2d 473 ].) We recognize that in the above-noted case of People | 1 | 2 |
People v. Felixgreen2 sentences2010It provides: "Except as provided in this section and in Sections 1102, 1103, 1108, and 1109, evidence of a person's character or a trait of his or her character (whether in the form of an opinion, evidence of reputation, or evidence of specific instances of his or her conduct) is inadmissible when offered to prove his or her conduct on a specified occasion." "This type of evidence sometimes is referred to as evidence of criminal disposition or propensity." ( People v. Carter (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1114, 1147 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 759 , 117 P.3d 476 ] ( Carter ).) "The rule excluding [evidence of crimina 2010It provides: "Except as provided in this section and in Sections 1102, 1103, 1108, and 1109, evidence of a person's character or a trait of his or her character (whether in the form of an opinion, evidence of reputation, or evidence of specific instances of his or her conduct) is inadmissible when offered to prove his or her conduct on a specified occasion." "This type of evidence sometimes is referred to as evidence of criminal disposition or propensity." ( People v. Carter (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1114, 1147 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 759 , 117 P.3d 476 ] ( Carter ).) "The rule excluding [evidence of crimina | 1 | 1 |
People v. Cartergreen2 sentences2010It provides: "Except as provided in this section and in Sections 1102, 1103, 1108, and 1109, evidence of a person's character or a trait of his or her character (whether in the form of an opinion, evidence of reputation, or evidence of specific instances of his or her conduct) is inadmissible when offered to prove his or her conduct on a specified occasion." "This type of evidence sometimes is referred to as evidence of criminal disposition or propensity." ( People v. Carter (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1114, 1147 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 759 , 117 P.3d 476 ] ( Carter ).) "The rule excluding [evidence of crimina 2010It provides: "Except as provided in this section and in Sections 1102, 1103, 1108, and 1109, evidence of a person's character or a trait of his or her character (whether in the form of an opinion, evidence of reputation, or evidence of specific instances of his or her conduct) is inadmissible when offered to prove his or her conduct on a specified occasion." "This type of evidence sometimes is referred to as evidence of criminal disposition or propensity." ( People v. Carter (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1114, 1147 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 759 , 117 P.3d 476 ] ( Carter ).) "The rule excluding [evidence of crimina | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ceballosgreen2 sentences1979Thirdly, in none of those same decisions did the court address the issue now before us, “and cases, of course, are not authority for propositions not there considered.” (People v. Ceballos (1974) 12 Cal.3d 470, 481 [ 116 Cal.Rptr. 233 , 526 P.2d 241 ], and cases cited.) Finally, the Attorney General contends the plain meaning of subdivir sion (d) should be disregarded because it would lead to an allegedly “absurd” result, i.e., that prosecutors would avoid the effect of subdivision (d) by simply withholding illegally obtained evidence until the sentencing (or probation revocation) hearing. 6 Y 1979Thirdly, in none of those same decisions did the court address the issue now before us, “and cases, of course, are not authority for propositions not there considered.” (People v. Ceballos (1974) 12 Cal.3d 470, 481 [ 116 Cal.Rptr. 233 , 526 P.2d 241 ], and cases cited.) Finally, the Attorney General contends the plain meaning of subdivir sion (d) should be disregarded because it would lead to an allegedly “absurd” result, i.e., that prosecutors would avoid the effect of subdivision (d) by simply withholding illegally obtained evidence until the sentencing (or probation revocation) hearing. 6 Y | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Stoll
green
2 sentences1992(See People v. Stoll, supra, 49 Cal.3d 1136 .) The provision of Evidence Code sections 1102 and 1103 have not, however, been extended to juvenile dependency matters. 1992(See People v. Stoll, supra, 49 Cal.3d 1136 .) The provision of Evidence Code sections 1102 and 1103 have not, however, been extended to juvenile dependency matters. | 2 | 1992–1992 |
Frye v. United States
red
1 sentence1992Cir.1923) 293 F. 1013 (hereafter Kelly/Frye ). [5] Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (a) provides for exceptions to the general exclusionary rule, such as those set forth in Evidence Code sections 1102 and 1103, allowing the character of a defendant or a victim to be proved in a criminal case under specified conditions. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
People v. Cramer
green
2 sentences1978Code, § 352.) People v. Cramer, 67 Cal.2d 126 [ 60 Cal.Rptr. 230 , 429 P.2d 582 ] and People v. Kelley, supra, make clear the purpose of the general exclusionary rule: (1) Prejudice to the defendant, (2) the problem of defending against uncharged crimes, and (3) judicial efficiency, i.e., the danger of becoming involved in time-consuming extraneous matters. 1978Code, § 352.) People v. Cramer, 67 Cal.2d 126 [ 60 Cal.Rptr. 230 , 429 P.2d 582 ] and People v. Kelley, supra, make clear the purpose of the general exclusionary rule: (1) Prejudice to the defendant, (2) the problem of defending against uncharged crimes, and (3) judicial efficiency, i.e., the danger of becoming involved in time-consuming extraneous matters. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Mapp v. Ohio
green
2 sentences1970On the contrary, it rested its decision squarely on the general exclusionary rule adopted in 1961 in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 [ 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 ] and a 1958 decision of a federal court of appeals, Bynum v. United States, 262 F.2d 465 . 1970On the contrary, it rested its decision squarely on the general exclusionary rule adopted in 1961 in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 [ 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 ] and a 1958 decision of a federal court of appeals, Bynum v. United States, 262 F.2d 465 . | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Clayborne Bynum v. United States
green
1 sentence1970On the contrary, it rested its decision squarely on the general exclusionary rule adopted in 1961 in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 [ 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 ] and a 1958 decision of a federal court of appeals, Bynum v. United States, 262 F.2d 465 . | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Logan v. Shelby
green
2 sentences1955Estate of Duke, 41 Cal.2d 509 [ 261 P.2d 235 ], involved a clause in a will, in addition to the general clause in the Axcelrod case, that excluded all persons who may become the testatrix' heirs "by reason of marriage or otherwise"; that was held sufficient disinheritance to prevent revocation as to an after-acquired spouse. 1955Estate of Duke, 41 Cal.2d 509 [ 261 P.2d 235 ], involved a clause in a will, in addition to the general clause in the Axcelrod case, that excluded all persons who may become the testatrix' heirs "by reason of marriage or otherwise"; that was held sufficient disinheritance to prevent revocation as to an after-acquired spouse. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Estate of Axcelrod v. Pocker
green
2 sentences1955In Estate of Axcelrod, supra, 23 Cal.2d 761 , the general exclusionary clause of “all my heirs not specifically mentioned herein” was held insufficient to prevent revocation as to an after-acquired spouse. 1955In Estate of Axcelrod, supra, 23 Cal.2d 761 , the general exclusionary clause of "all my heirs not specifically mentioned herein" was held insufficient to prevent revocation as to an after-acquired spouse. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.