7 California opinions name it 2 courts 2014–2022 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Merrimangreen2 sentences2022(Id at p. 824.) In determining the admissibility under Evidence Code section 352 of evidence of past sexual offenses offered under Evidence Code section 1108, the court must "undertake[] a careful and specialized inquiry to determine whether the danger of undue prejudice from the propensity evidence substantially outweighs its probative value." (People v. Merriman (2014) 60 Cal.4th 1, 41 .) Factors to be considered by the court include the "'nature, relevance, and possible remoteness [of the evidence], the degree of certainty of its commission and the likelihood of confusing, misleading, or di 2022Evidence Code section 1108, subdivision (a), states: “In a criminal action in which the defendant is accused of a sexual offense, evidence of the defendant’s commission of another sexual offense or offenses is not made inadmissible by Section 1101, if the evidence is not inadmissible pursuant to Section 352.” Evidence Code section 1108 provides an exception to the general rule that “ ‘propensity evidence is not admissible to prove a defendant’s conduct on a specific occasion.’ ” (People v. Dworak (2021) 11 Cal.5th 881, 899 .) Before such evidence is admitted, the trial court must “engage in a | 2 | 5 |
People v. Ewoldtgreen2 sentences2019(See People v. Merriman (2014) 60 Cal.4th 1 , 40, 177 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 332 P.3d 1187 ( Merriman ).) As to admissibility under section 352, evidence of past sexual offenses proffered under section 1108 requires the court to "undertake[ ] a careful and specialized inquiry to determine whether the danger of undue prejudice from the propensity evidence substantially outweighs its probative value." ( Merriman , supra , 60 Cal.4th at p. 41 , 177 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 332 P.3d 1187 .) Among the factors to consider are the " 'nature, relevance, and possible remoteness [of the evidence], the degree of certain 2019(See People v. Merriman (2014) 60 Cal.4th 1 , 40, 177 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 332 P.3d 1187 ( Merriman ).) As to admissibility under section 352, evidence of past sexual offenses proffered under section 1108 requires the court to "undertake[ ] a careful and specialized inquiry to determine whether the danger of undue prejudice from the propensity evidence substantially outweighs its probative value." ( Merriman , supra , 60 Cal.4th at p. 41 , 177 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 332 P.3d 1187 .) Among the factors to consider are the " 'nature, relevance, and possible remoteness [of the evidence], the degree of certain | 2 | 2 |
People v. Falsettagreen2 sentences2022Evidence Code section 1108, subdivision (a), states: “In a criminal action in which the defendant is accused of a sexual offense, evidence of the defendant’s commission of another sexual offense or offenses is not made inadmissible by Section 1101, if the evidence is not inadmissible pursuant to Section 352.” Evidence Code section 1108 provides an exception to the general rule that “ ‘propensity evidence is not admissible to prove a defendant’s conduct on a specific occasion.’ ” (People v. Dworak (2021) 11 Cal.5th 881, 899 .) Before such evidence is admitted, the trial court must “engage in a 2021(See Erskine, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 296 ; People v. Kipp (1998) 18 Cal.4th 349, 369-371 .) We do not disturb that ruling on appeal absent a showing that the court exercised its discretion in an “arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner” that resulted in a “manifest miscarriage of justice.” (People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 9-10 .) Under section 352, “evidence of past sexual offenses proffered under section 1108 requires the court to ‘undertake[ ] a careful and specialized inquiry to determine whether the danger of undue prejudice from the propensity evidence substantially outw | 1 | 4 |
People v. Branchgreen2 sentences2020In such a circumstance, the evidence is unduly prejudicial because of the substantial likelihood the jury will use it for an illegitimate purpose.’ [Citation.]” (Branch, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 286 .) “As to admissibility under section 352, evidence of past sexual offenses proffered under section 1108 requires the court to ‘undertake[ ] a careful and specialized inquiry to determine whether the danger of undue prejudice from the propensity evidence substantially outweighs its probative value.’ [Citation.] Among the factors to consider 9 are the ‘ “nature, relevance, and possible remoteness 2020In such a circumstance, the evidence is unduly prejudicial because of the substantial likelihood the jury will use it for an illegitimate purpose.’ [Citation.]” (Branch, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 286 .) “As to admissibility under section 352, evidence of past sexual offenses proffered under section 1108 requires the court to ‘undertake[ ] a careful and specialized inquiry to determine whether the danger of undue prejudice from the propensity evidence substantially outweighs its probative value.’ [Citation.] Among the factors to consider 9 are the ‘ “nature, relevance, and possible remoteness | 1 | 1 |
People v. Harrisgreen1 sentence2020(People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380, 405 [12-year gap not too great]; Branch, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 284 [30-year gap between offenses is “substantial,” but similarity between offenses can balance out remoteness]; People v. Harris (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 727, 739 [finding a 23-year gap between sexual offenses with no intervening criminal conduct militates against admission].) The incident involving K.H. occurred in 2003, the incident involving A.A. occurred in 2013, and the charged offense occurred in 2014. | 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. Erskine
green
2 sentences2022Evidence Code section 1108, subdivision (a), states: “In a criminal action in which the defendant is accused of a sexual offense, evidence of the defendant’s commission of another sexual offense or offenses is not made inadmissible by Section 1101, if the evidence is not inadmissible pursuant to Section 352.” Evidence Code section 1108 provides an exception to the general rule that “ ‘propensity evidence is not admissible to prove a defendant’s conduct on a specific occasion.’ ” (People v. Dworak (2021) 11 Cal.5th 881, 899 .) Before such evidence is admitted, the trial court must “engage in a 2021(See Erskine, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 296 ; People v. Kipp (1998) 18 Cal.4th 349, 369-371 .) We do not disturb that ruling on appeal absent a showing that the court exercised its discretion in an “arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner” that resulted in a “manifest miscarriage of justice.” (People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 9-10 .) Under section 352, “evidence of past sexual offenses proffered under section 1108 requires the court to ‘undertake[ ] a careful and specialized inquiry to determine whether the danger of undue prejudice from the propensity evidence substantially outw | 3 | 2020–2022 |
People v. Dworak
green
2 sentences2022Evidence Code section 1108, subdivision (a), states: “In a criminal action in which the defendant is accused of a sexual offense, evidence of the defendant’s commission of another sexual offense or offenses is not made inadmissible by Section 1101, if the evidence is not inadmissible pursuant to Section 352.” Evidence Code section 1108 provides an exception to the general rule that “ ‘propensity evidence is not admissible to prove a defendant’s conduct on a specific occasion.’ ” (People v. Dworak (2021) 11 Cal.5th 881, 899 .) Before such evidence is admitted, the trial court must “engage in a 2022Evidence Code section 1108, subdivision (a), states: “In a criminal action in which the defendant is accused of a sexual offense, evidence of the defendant’s commission of another sexual offense or offenses is not made inadmissible by Section 1101, if the evidence is not inadmissible pursuant to Section 352.” Evidence Code section 1108 provides an exception to the general rule that “ ‘propensity evidence is not admissible to prove a defendant’s conduct on a specific occasion.’ ” (People v. Dworak (2021) 11 Cal.5th 881, 899 .) Before such evidence is admitted, the trial court must “engage in a | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. DeJourney
green
1 sentence2022Evidence Code section 1108, subdivision (a), states: “In a criminal action in which the defendant is accused of a sexual offense, evidence of the defendant’s commission of another sexual offense or offenses is not made inadmissible by Section 1101, if the evidence is not inadmissible pursuant to Section 352.” Evidence Code section 1108 provides an exception to the general rule that “ ‘propensity evidence is not admissible to prove a defendant’s conduct on a specific occasion.’ ” (People v. Dworak (2021) 11 Cal.5th 881, 899 .) Before such evidence is admitted, the trial court must “engage in a | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Miles
green
1 sentence2022Evidence Code section 1108, subdivision (a), states: “In a criminal action in which the defendant is accused of a sexual offense, evidence of the defendant’s commission of another sexual offense or offenses is not made inadmissible by Section 1101, if the evidence is not inadmissible pursuant to Section 352.” Evidence Code section 1108 provides an exception to the general rule that “ ‘propensity evidence is not admissible to prove a defendant’s conduct on a specific occasion.’ ” (People v. Dworak (2021) 11 Cal.5th 881, 899 .) Before such evidence is admitted, the trial court must “engage in a | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Rodriguez
green
1 sentence2021(See Erskine, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 296 ; People v. Kipp (1998) 18 Cal.4th 349, 369-371 .) We do not disturb that ruling on appeal absent a showing that the court exercised its discretion in an “arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner” that resulted in a “manifest miscarriage of justice.” (People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 9-10 .) Under section 352, “evidence of past sexual offenses proffered under section 1108 requires the court to ‘undertake[ ] a careful and specialized inquiry to determine whether the danger of undue prejudice from the propensity evidence substantially outw | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Kipp
green
1 sentence2021(See Erskine, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 296 ; People v. Kipp (1998) 18 Cal.4th 349, 369-371 .) We do not disturb that ruling on appeal absent a showing that the court exercised its discretion in an “arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner” that resulted in a “manifest miscarriage of justice.” (People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 9-10 .) Under section 352, “evidence of past sexual offenses proffered under section 1108 requires the court to ‘undertake[ ] a careful and specialized inquiry to determine whether the danger of undue prejudice from the propensity evidence substantially outw | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Roldan
green
2 sentences2019But it is the prosecutor's burden *297 to establish every element of the crime, regardless of whether the defendant offers a defense or not (see, e.g., People v. Roldan (2005) 35 Cal.4th 646 , 705-706, 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 360 , 110 P.3d 289 ; People v. Catlin (2001) 26 Cal.4th 81 , 146, 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 31 , 26 P.3d 357 ), and it would not have been unlikely, in 2003, for one or more jurors to be leery of convicting for capital crimes based principally on the scientific DNA evidence in this case. 2019But it is the prosecutor's burden *297 to establish every element of the crime, regardless of whether the defendant offers a defense or not (see, e.g., People v. Roldan (2005) 35 Cal.4th 646 , 705-706, 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 360 , 110 P.3d 289 ; People v. Catlin (2001) 26 Cal.4th 81 , 146, 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 31 , 26 P.3d 357 ), and it would not have been unlikely, in 2003, for one or more jurors to be leery of convicting for capital crimes based principally on the scientific DNA evidence in this case. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Catlin
green
2 sentences2019But it is the prosecutor's burden *297 to establish every element of the crime, regardless of whether the defendant offers a defense or not (see, e.g., People v. Roldan (2005) 35 Cal.4th 646 , 705-706, 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 360 , 110 P.3d 289 ; People v. Catlin (2001) 26 Cal.4th 81 , 146, 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 31 , 26 P.3d 357 ), and it would not have been unlikely, in 2003, for one or more jurors to be leery of convicting for capital crimes based principally on the scientific DNA evidence in this case. 2019But it is the prosecutor's burden *297 to establish every element of the crime, regardless of whether the defendant offers a defense or not (see, e.g., People v. Roldan (2005) 35 Cal.4th 646 , 705-706, 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 360 , 110 P.3d 289 ; People v. Catlin (2001) 26 Cal.4th 81 , 146, 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 31 , 26 P.3d 357 ), and it would not have been unlikely, in 2003, for one or more jurors to be leery of convicting for capital crimes based principally on the scientific DNA evidence in this case. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.