CA Character Evidence Flashcards
Character Evidence in Civil Cases
Both CA and Fed General Rule: character evidence is inadmissible to prove conduct in conformity (propensity) in civil cases.
Fed: There’s an exception where the civil claim is based on sexual assault or child molestation. D’s acts of doing those things are admissible to prove D’s conduct in conformity with character.
CA: Doesn’t recognize the above exception. There are no exceptions in CA to the general rule that character evidence is inadmissible to prove conduct in civil cases.
Character Evidence in Criminal Cases
2 doors to admissible character evidence in criminal cases:
1) Evidence of D’s character
2) Evidence of V’s character
Both doors closed when prosecution begins case in chief. Character evidence is inadmissible until D opens the door to addressing character.
Defendant’s Character in Criminal Cases
Both Fed and CA: D can open the door to character evidence. The prosecution can’t initiate the use of character evidence to prove D’s conduct. The prosecution can only rebut after D opens the door. Prop 8 doesn’t change this in CA.
EXCEPTIONS: when Prosecution can initiate character evidence
1) Both Fed and CA: if D is a sexual predator, prosecutor may offer evidence that D committed other acts in conformity. CA doesn’t recognize this exception for CIVIL cases, but it does here in CRIMINAL cases
2) CA extends the above exception: in a prosecution for a crime of Domestic Violence or Elder Abuse, the prosecution may offer evidence that D committed other acts of Domestic Violence or Elder Abuse.
3) Feds: Where D has introduced evidence of V’s bad character, prosecution may rebut by offering evidence that D has a bad character for the same trait
4) In CA, where D has introduced evidence of V’s character for VIOLENCE, prosecution may rebut by offering evidence that D has a VIOLENT character (narrower version of #3 because it’s only available for violence as a trait
)
Criminal Cases: Cross Examination of D’s Character Witness
Once D introduces evidence of their own good character via reputation or opinion, prosecution is allowed to cross X the defendant’s character witness about D’s specific instances of conduct. Not permitted for character, but for impeachment.
Same rule for both Fed and CA
Victim’s Character in Criminal Case
Both Fed and CA: most of the same rules above apply. The prosecution can’t be the first to offer evidence of V’s character to prove V’s conduct.
Homicide Exception (Fed Only): Under Fed rules, in homicide case, if D offers any evidence that V attacked first, the door is open and the prosecution can offer reputation or opinion evidence that V had a peaceful character. CA does not have an equivalent rule.
Admissibility of Specific Instances of V’s Conduct:
1) Under Fed rules, D can introduce evidence of V’s character in the form of reputation or opinion. If door is opened about V’s character, prosecution can cross X D’s character witness about specific instances of V’s conduct. These specific instances are allowed on cross X for the limited purpose of attacking the character witness’ direct testimony.
2) In CA, specific acts are admissible to prove V’s character BOTH on direct AND cross X. In other words, D can offer evidence of V’s character in the form of reputation, opinion, and specific instances of conduct. Once door opened, prosecution can rebut with evidence in the form of reputation, opinion, and specific instances.
CA Rape Shield
Fed rules: in any civil or criminal proceeding involving sexual misconduct, evidence offered to prove the sexual behavior or sexual disposition of V is generally inadmissible with a few exceptions
CA: recognizes a similar statute that applies ONLY IN CRIMINAL sexual assault cases. Opinion, reputation, and specific acts evidence of V’s sexual conduct are all inadmissible to prove V’s consent, UNLESS V’s sexual conduct was with D. Evidence of V’s manner of dress at time of offense is inadmissible.
If prosecution introduces evidence of V’s prior sexual conduct, D is permitted to cross X the witness who gave the evidence and can rebut only the specific evidence given.
D’s Similar Misconduct in Certain Cases
Fed: evidence of D’s other acts of sexual predation is admissible in any crim or civil case where D is accused of committing an act of sexual predation. Such evidence is relevant for any purpose, including D’s propensity to commit sex crimes
CA admits such evidence in crim cases BUT NOT IN CIVIL CASES. Additionally, in crim cases, CA extends the rule to other types of crimes. In prosecutions for DOMESTIC VIOLENCE or ELDER ABUSE, D’s other similar acts are admissible
