Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 California opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2025 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. Bakergreen2 sentences2022Legal Principles “[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 [generally] inadmissible when offered to prove his or her conduct on a specified occasion.” (§ 1101, subd. (a); accord, People v. Baker (2021) 10 Cal.5th 1044 , 1088–1089 (Baker); People v. Cottone (2013) 57 Cal.4th 269, 285 .) “The purpose of this evidentiary rule ‘is to assure that a defendant is tried upon the crime charged and is not tried upon an antisocial history.’ ” (People v. Nico 2022Legal Principles “[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 [generally] inadmissible when offered to prove his or her conduct on a specified occasion.” (§ 1101, subd. (a); accord, People v. Baker (2021) 10 Cal.5th 1044 , 1088–1089 (Baker); People v. Cottone (2013) 57 Cal.4th 269, 285 .) “The purpose of this evidentiary rule ‘is to assure that a defendant is tried upon the crime charged and is not tried upon an antisocial history.’ ” (People v. Nico | 2 | 2 |
People v. Nicolasgreen2 sentences2022Legal Principles “[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 [generally] inadmissible when offered to prove his or her conduct on a specified occasion.” (§ 1101, subd. (a); accord, People v. Baker (2021) 10 Cal.5th 1044 , 1088–1089 (Baker); People v. Cottone (2013) 57 Cal.4th 269, 285 .) “The purpose of this evidentiary rule ‘is to assure that a defendant is tried upon the crime charged and is not tried upon an antisocial history.’ ” (People v. Nico 2021Legal Principles “[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 [generally] inadmissible when offered to prove his or her conduct on a specified occasion.” (§ 1101, subd. (a); accord, People v. Baker (2021) 10 Cal.5th 1044 , 1088–1089 (Baker); People v. Cottone (2013) 57 Cal.4th 269, 285 .) “The purpose of this evidentiary rule ‘is to assure that a defendant is tried upon the crime charged and is not tried upon an antisocial history.’ ” (People v. Nico | 1 | 4 |
People v. Aeschlimanngreen2 sentences2025(People v. Cottone (2013) 57 Cal.4th 269, 285 .) “Except as provided . . . , 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.” (§ 1101 (a).) The purpose of this evidentiary rule “is to assure that a defendant is tried upon the crime charged and is not tried upon an antisocial history.” (People v. Aeschlimann (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 460, 473 .) However, a well-established exception t 2017Code, § 1101, subd. (a).) The purpose of this evidentiary rule “is to assure that a defendant is tried upon the crime charged and is not tried upon an antisocial history.” (People v. Aeschlimann (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 460, 473 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 689 ].) However, a well-established exception to the general rule is that a defendant’s uncharged conduct may be admitted “ ‘not to prove a person’s predisposition to commit such an act, but rather to prove some other material fact, such as that person’s intent or identity.’ ” (People v. Rocha (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1385, 1393 [ 165 Cal.Rptr.3d 190 ].) “Not | 1 | 2 |
People v. Rochagreen2 sentences2025(People v. Cottone (2013) 57 Cal.4th 269, 285 .) “Except as provided . . . , 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.” (§ 1101 (a).) The purpose of this evidentiary rule “is to assure that a defendant is tried upon the crime charged and is not tried upon an antisocial history.” (People v. Aeschlimann (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 460, 473 .) However, a well-established exception t 2017Code, § 1101, subd. (a).) The purpose of this evidentiary rule “is to assure that a defendant is tried upon the crime charged and is not tried upon an antisocial history.” (People v. Aeschlimann (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 460, 473 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 689 ].) However, a well-established exception to the general rule is that a defendant’s uncharged conduct may be admitted “ ‘not to prove a person’s predisposition to commit such an act, but rather to prove some other material fact, such as that person’s intent or identity.’ ” (People v. Rocha (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1385, 1393 [ 165 Cal.Rptr.3d 190 ].) “Not | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Cottone
green
2 sentences2025(People v. Cottone (2013) 57 Cal.4th 269, 285 .) “Except as provided . . . , 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.” (§ 1101 (a).) The purpose of this evidentiary rule “is to assure that a defendant is tried upon the crime charged and is not tried upon an antisocial history.” (People v. Aeschlimann (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 460, 473 .) However, a well-established exception t 2022Legal Principles “[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 [generally] inadmissible when offered to prove his or her conduct on a specified occasion.” (§ 1101, subd. (a); accord, People v. Baker (2021) 10 Cal.5th 1044 , 1088–1089 (Baker); People v. Cottone (2013) 57 Cal.4th 269, 285 .) “The purpose of this evidentiary rule ‘is to assure that a defendant is tried upon the crime charged and is not tried upon an antisocial history.’ ” (People v. Nico | 3 | 2021–2025 |
People v. Ewoldt
green
1 sentence2025(People v. Cottone (2013) 57 Cal.4th 269, 285 .) “Except as provided . . . , 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.” (§ 1101 (a).) The purpose of this evidentiary rule “is to assure that a defendant is tried upon the crime charged and is not tried upon an antisocial history.” (People v. Aeschlimann (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 460, 473 .) However, a well-established exception t | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Lewis
green
1 sentence2025For identity to be established, the uncharged misconduct and the charged offense must share common features that are sufficiently distinctive so as to support the inference that the same person committed both acts.” (Id. at p. 403.) If a trial court finds the proffered evidence relevant under section 1101 (b), it must also consider whether the potential for undue prejudice outweighs the probative value. (§ 352.) Generally, “‘[t]he probative value of the uncharged offense evidence must be substantial and must not be largely outweighed by the probability that its admission would create a serious | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Central Pathology Service Medical Clinic, Inc. v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence1997(Central Pathology, supra, 3 Cal.4th 181, 192 .) Instead, “[t]he allegations that identify the nature and cause of a plaintiff’s injury must be examined to determine whether each is directly related to the manner in which professional services were provided.” (Id. at p. 192). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
College Hospital, Inc. v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1997(Ibid.) 1 The purpose of this evidentiary requirement is “to protect health care providers from the onerous burden of defending against meritless punitive damage claims.” (College Hospital, supra, 8 Cal.4th 704, 709 .) The applicability of section 425.13 does not depend upon technical pleading distinctions between intentional versus negligent tort theories. “[^Identifying a cause of action as an ‘intentional tort’ as opposed to ‘negligence’ does not itself remove the claim from the requirements” of section 425.13. 1997(Ibid.) 1 The purpose of this evidentiary requirement is “to protect health care providers from the onerous burden of defending against meritless punitive damage claims.” (College Hospital, supra, 8 Cal.4th 704, 709 .) The applicability of section 425.13 does not depend upon technical pleading distinctions between intentional versus negligent tort theories. “[^Identifying a cause of action as an ‘intentional tort’ as opposed to ‘negligence’ does not itself remove the claim from the requirements” of section 425.13. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.