 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Robinson12/11/2000
galado, supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 1063; People v. Van Winkle, supra, 75 Cal.App.4th at p. 148.) We thus reject defendant's contention that CALJIC No. 2.50.01 permitted the jury to convict him based solely on evidence of other crimes.
C. Evidence Showing that Defendant Had Committed Other Rapes
Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it allowed evidence showing that defendant had raped other women on the theory that it was admissible to prove his disposition and propensity to commit sexual offenses, because (1) Evidence Code section 1108, which allows such evidence, is unconstitutional, and (2) the evidence should have been excluded under Evidence Code section 352 because it created undue prejudice and required an undue consumption of time. We reject each of these contentions.
Defendant acknowledges that the constitutionality of Evidence Code section 1108, which allows evidence of other sexual offenses to prove propensity to commit sexual offenses, was upheld in People v. Falsetta, supra, 21 Cal.4th at pages 912-922, wherein the Supreme Court found that allowing propensity evidence did not offend due process principles as long as a trial court had discretion under Evidence Code section 352 to exclude such evidence in appropriate cases. Defendant raises this argument, however, because he wants "to preserve the issue in the event further review of conviction is necessary after the resolution of this appeal." We will follow the holding in Falsetta and will similarly find that Evidence Code section 1108 does not offend principles of due process because it allows propensity evidence based on other uncharged offenses to be presented to a jury for consideration in determining defendant's guilt of a charged offense. In following Falsetta, we of course join a number of other courts that have also chosen to honor the principle of stare decisis. (See, e.g., People v. Waples, supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at p. 1394; People v. Regalado, supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1059-1060; People v. Van Winkle, supra, 75 Cal.App.4th at pp. 140-141.)
Defendant next contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to exclude the evidence of other sexual offenses under Evidence Code section 352. Defendant basically argues that the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the possibility it would create an undue prejudicial effect and require an undue consumption of time, and the trial court should have excluded it. Our review leads us to conclude that the trial court properly weighed all the factors, and properly exercised its discretion under Evidence Code section 352 when it found the probative value was not substantially outweighed by the possibility of undue prejudice and undue consumption of time, and therefore allowed the evidence of other rapes to be presented.
The record in the instant case discloses that the trial court was well aware of its duty under Evidence Code section 352 to look at various factors and weigh the potential for undue prejudice, confusion of the issues, and consumption of time, to determine if they substantially outweighed the probative value of the evidence. The court engaged in a thorough and specific recitation of its weighing process, and addressed each of the concerns raised by trial counsel. The court found the evidence concerning defendant's rapes of Rita R. and Sylvia G. was not highly inflammatory in comparison to the charged acts, was not more gruesome than the evidence relating to the charged acts, was going to be presented by the specific victims themselves rather than a more speculative form of evidence, was not too remote, was not going to take an undue amount of time to present, was not going to
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|