2) Ch Evidence

Question 1

sexual assault / child molestation civil case: CA rule

Answer 1

D’s prior similar acts CANNOT be used to prove D’s conduct in this case

(but yes ok in crim, just like the fre–even before D opens the door)
result: ch evidence in civil cases in v narrow –> MIMIC + the specific legal acts

Question 2

sexual assault / child molestation civil case: FRE vs CEC

Answer 2

FRE: yes admissible (415)
CEC: no, no 415 equivalent

Question 3

ch evidence in crim case: CA is broader…

Answer 3

in prosecution for crime of DV or elder abuse

prosecution may offer evidence that D committed similar bad acts
(an extension of the fre/cec rule re you can attack D’s ch in sexual assault or child molestation cases)

D dnn open the door!

Question 4

dv/elder abuse: CA vs FRE

Answer 4

CA: prosecution can offer evidence of D’s similar bad acts even before door open

FRE: no such rule (only has it for sexual assault, child molestation)

Question 5

prosecution rebutting w evidence of D’s bad ch (after D introduced his good ch): CA rule

Answer 5

only reputation or opinion, specific acts never allowed

Question 6

prosecution rebutting w evidence of D’s bad ch (after D introduced his good ch): CA v FRE

Answer 6

CA: specific acts never allowed (only R, O)

FRE: specific acts allowed ON CROSS

Question 7

rule re offering evidence of D’s character trait as rebuttal after offering evidence of V’s similar trait: CA

Answer 7

only can offer re V’s (then D’s) ch for VIOLENCE

Question 8

rule re offering evidence of D’s character trait as rebuttal after offering evidence of V’s similar trait: CA vs FRE

Answer 8

CA: for violence only

FRE: any ch trait

Question 9

methods admissible for attacking V’s ch: CA

Answer 9

any form! R, O, Specific Acts

Question 10

methods admissible for attacking V’s ch: CA vs FRE

Answer 10

FRE: direct: only R, O
CA: for V’s character can be any–ROSA

Question 11

rule for introducing V’s character in a homicide case: CA

Answer 11

no similar rule – D must first make V’s ch an issue

Question 12

rule for introducing V’s character in a homicide case: CA vs FRE

Answer 12

CA: no similar rule – D must first make V’s ch an issue

FRE: if homicide case + D claims self-defense or introduces fact evidence that V first aggressor, prosecution can automatically offer evidence of V’s trait for peacefulness/nonviolence

Question 13

rape shield law / prop 8

Answer 13

does not apply (so it’s still shielded-out)

Question 14

rape shield law: crim: CA

Answer 14

ok introduce evidence of V’s sexual conduct to:

impeach testimony of alleged victim in a prosecution for sexual assault crime

Question 15

rape shield law: crim; CA vs FRE

Answer 15

CA: impeach testimony of alleged victim in a prosecution for sexual assault crime

FRE: excluded except for specific tings (consent, source of semen, confrontaiton clause)

Question 16

rape shield law: civil: CA

Answer 16

ok introduce evidence of V’s sexual conduct to:

attack P’s credibility in actions involving sexual har/assault/battery

Question 17

rape shield law: civil: CA vs. FRE

Answer 17

CA: ok attack P’s credibility in actions involving sexual har/assault/battery

FRE: only if probative value substantially outweighs danger of harm to any V or of unfair prejudice to any party