I got confused because of some contradictions between my class notes and the Conviser Mini Review.

classnotes: CA: prosecution can be the FIRST to offer evidence of D's character in sexual assault or child molestation cases. And in prosecution of domestic violence, prosecution may offer evidence that D committed other act of domestic violence.
Conviser distinction chart: CEC does not allow prospensity evidence regarding the D in sexual assault, child abuse, elder abuse and domestic violence.
Question: Can prosecution offer D's character evidence in those cases?

Question 2: Also in CA,  in rape or sexual assault cases, can evidence of D's character be offered? (may be an overlap with the above question). Can evidence of victim's character be offered?

Question3: can CA prosecution be the FIRST to offer evidence of D's character, if D claims self-defense and offers evidence that the victim is a violent person. (This is on the Conviser distinction chart but classnotes say it is federal only) 

<!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:none; mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:2.0cm 42.5pt 2.0cm 3.0cm; mso-header-margin:36.0pt; mso-footer-margin:36.0pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} /* List Definitions */ @list l0 {mso-list-id:-2; mso-list-type:simple; mso-list-template-ids:-2060779642;} @list l0:level1 {mso-level-start-at:0; mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:*; mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:left; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:0cm;} @list l0:level1 lfo1 {mso-level-start-at:65535; mso-level-numbering:continue; mso-level-text:-; mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:left; mso-level-legacy:yes; mso-level-legacy-indent:36.0pt; mso-level-legacy-space:0cm; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:0cm; font-family:"Times New Roman";} ol {margin-bottom:0cm;} ul {margin-bottom:0cm;} --> <!--[if gte mso 10]> <!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:none; mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:595.3pt 841.9pt; margin:2.0cm 42.5pt 2.0cm 3.0cm; mso-header-margin:35.4pt; mso-footer-margin:35.4pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} /* List Definitions */ @list l0 {mso-list-id:-2; mso-list-type:simple; mso-list-template-ids:-2060779642;} @list l0:level1 {mso-level-start-at:0; mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:*; mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:left; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:0cm;} @list l0:level1 lfo1 {mso-level-start-at:65535; mso-level-numbering:continue; mso-level-text:-; mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:left; mso-level-legacy:yes; mso-level-legacy-indent:36.0pt; mso-level-legacy-space:0cm; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:0cm; font-family:"Times New Roman";} ol {margin-bottom:0cm;} ul {margin-bottom:0cm;} --> <!--[if gte mso 10]> MERCY RULE: D can offer good character (“opens the door”) – ONLY opinion & reputation

 

 

Is it a civil or criminal case?

Civil case

i.Character evidence Inadmissible to prove conduct

ii.EXCEPT FRE where civil claim is based on sexual assault or child molestation (in such case, D’s prior acts of sexual assault or child molestation ARE admissible to prove conduct):

Not admissible in Cal in civil case

Criminal case

i.2 doors to admissibility of character evidence to prove conduct

<!--[if !supportLists]-->-                      <!--[endif]-->Both closed at beginning of case

<!--[if !supportLists]-->-                      <!--[endif]-->Usually, ONLY defendant can open these doors

<!--[if !supportLists]-->-                      <!--[endif]-->Usually, they are opened separately

ii. Prosecution can only rebut after defendant opens door by offering character evidence Prop 8 does not change rules here.

 

 

 

 DEFENDANT’S DOOR:   Prosecution cannot be first to open

 

EXCEPTION #1: in case of sexual assault or child molestation, prosecution can be the first the open the door by offering evidence that defendant committed other acts of sexual assault or child molestation CAL =FRE

 

EXCEPTION #2: where court has admitted evidence of victim’s character offered by defendant, prosecution can be first to offer evidence that defendant has same character trait Evidence must ALWAYS concern a PERTINENT character trait (not evidence of dishonesty if this is a child rape case)

 

EXCEPTION #3 In Cal only: in prosecution for DV, Prose can offer E of other acts of DV by D.  In FRE prosecution can not offer evidence that D hit victim before. In Cal can offer evidence of prior violence (only)

 

EXCEPTION #4 In Cal only: if courts admitted evidence of victim’s character offered by accused, prosecution may offer evidence that accuse has violent character (narrow version of #2) Narrow #4 only works for domestic violence:

CF. Theft of ring, Victim claims deft stole. Deft claim his ring, and V is one who stole it and Deft just claimed it back, Deft offers evidence of dishonesty of V. By FRE prosecution can offer evidence of dishonesty for Deft:

FRE: yes, b/c door is opened, CAL: no, only works for trait of violence.

 

In addition on essay:  in Cal, CEC are most the same as FRE, important difference in Criminal cases by Cal. Prop 8, “Truth of Evidence”, amendment to Cal Const:

 

all relevant E is admissible in criminal case, even if objectionable under CEC, unless exceptions exist to prop 8, i.e. these CEC are not overruled by Prob 8: 1) Confrontation clause (exclusionary rules, 2) HS, 3) Privileges Law, 4) Limits on character E of a victim in a rape case, 5) rule prohibiting introduction of E by Prosecution until defendant opens the door, 6) Best evidence rule (secondary evidence  in Cal, 7) CEC 352 crt can exclude E if UP>>PV. (unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value)  

 

<!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:none; mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:2.0cm 42.5pt 2.0cm 3.0cm; mso-header-margin:36.0pt; mso-footer-margin:36.0pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} /* List Definitions */ @list l0 {mso-list-id:-2; mso-list-type:simple; mso-list-template-ids:-2060779642;} @list l0:level1 {mso-level-start-at:0; mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:*; mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:left; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:0cm;} @list l0:level1 lfo1 {mso-level-start-at:65535; mso-level-numbering:continue; mso-level-text:-; mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:left; mso-level-legacy:yes; mso-level-legacy-indent:36.0pt; mso-level-legacy-space:0cm; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:0cm; font-family:"Times New Roman";} ol {margin-bottom:0cm;} ul {margin-bottom:0cm;} --> <!--[if gte mso 10]> <!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:none; mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:2.0cm 42.5pt 2.0cm 3.0cm; mso-header-margin:36.0pt; mso-footer-margin:36.0pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} /* List Definitions */ @list l0 {mso-list-id:-2; mso-list-type:simple; mso-list-template-ids:-2060779642;} @list l0:level1 {mso-level-start-at:0; mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:*; mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:left; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:0cm;} @list l0:level1 lfo1 {mso-level-start-at:65535; mso-level-numbering:continue; mso-level-text:-; mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:left; mso-level-legacy:yes; mso-level-legacy-indent:36.0pt; mso-level-legacy-space:0cm; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:0cm; font-family:"Times New Roman";} ol {margin-bottom:0cm;} ul {margin-bottom:0cm;} --> <!--[if gte mso 10]> VICTIM’S DOOR

First way to open door:

Defendant can open the door: if defendant offers evidence of victim’s character, prosecution may rebut

Second way to open door: in a homicide case, (not an assault or attempted murder) if defendant offers evidence victim attacked first, prosecution may offer evidence of victim’s character for peacefulness

<!--[if !supportLists]-->-                      <!--[endif]-->Doors usually open separately EXCEPT after court admits defense evidence of victim’s violent character, prosecution offers evidence of defendant’s violent character. CEC if avoidance of V’s character admitted it is subject to Prop 8 and balancing of 352.  

In Cal: But all methods are admissible on both direct and cross if proving character of V. 

FRE: reputation and opinion admissible, no specific act on direct,  OK only on cross.  

 

Example: Deft charged with non sexual assault, alleges that self-defense, was attacked first. Prose offers during case in chief that victim had reputation of a peaceful person, Result:

Ca:  inadmissible under CEC, but admissible under Pro8

FRE: inadmissible

 

Example: same as above but homicide: FRE exception applies –\>admissible

 

Example: Defendant can open the door: Same case Def claims victim had reputation of Psycho

FRE: admissible

CEC: admissible, no need to apply Prop8 b/c def opened the door.

 

Example: On direct -no specific instances of V’s conduct: Same case, on direct, Def claims victim had bitten him up in the past.

FRE: inadmissible specific act

CEC: no limits on how to prove V’s character, admissible, OK on direct or cross.

 

Character rules only apply when evidence being used to prove character (i.e., not state of mind, etc.)

 

<!--[if !supportLists]-->-                      <!--[endif]--> 

iv.        Rape Shield Statute (Cal Prob 8 does not apply to E barred by shields)

<!--[if !supportLists]-->-                      <!--[endif]-->Special rules in civil and criminal cases limiting defense evidence of alleged victim’s character when offered to prove CONSENT.  CEC similar to FRE, Prop 8 does not apply, unless proving character of Victim.

 

Criminal rules: reputation and opinion evidence inadmissible. Specific instances of alleged victim’s conduct ADMISSIBLE ONLY to prove either third party is source of semen or injury OR prior acts of consensual intercourse between defendant and alleged victim

<!--[if !supportLists]-->-                      <!--[endif]-->Civil rules: reputation, opinion, and specific instances evidence IS admissible IF probative value substantially outweighs unfair prejudice AND, in the case of reputation evidence, plaintiff put her reputation at issue

Thank you very much. Another question: In rape case, does CA has the same rule as FRE in admitting a victim's character evidence? What kind of method can be used, opinion, reputation or specific instances?
And I am still not very clear about offering evidence of specific acts of misconduct in sexual assault, child abuse or domestic violence cases. You said that in criminal case, FRE and CA rules are same that the prosecution can open the door first by introducing character evidence of D in sexual assault and child molestaion cases. Would you mind checking the Mini conviser evidence distinction chart on page 5 (maybe your book is different b/c mine is an 07 version). In the "Character evidence" section, it says that "CEC does not allow propensity evidence regarding the D in cases that charge sexual assault, child abuse, elder abuse or domestic violence." How to understand this rule?

see above i change a couple of things, it is a very good way to improve an outline

<!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:none; mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:2.0cm 42.5pt 2.0cm 3.0cm; mso-header-margin:36.0pt; mso-footer-margin:36.0pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} /* List Definitions */ @list l0 {mso-list-id:-2; mso-list-type:simple; mso-list-template-ids:-2060779642;} @list l0:level1 {mso-level-start-at:0; mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:*; mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:left; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:0cm;} @list l0:level1 lfo1 {mso-level-start-at:65535; mso-level-numbering:continue; mso-level-text:-; mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:left; mso-level-legacy:yes; mso-level-legacy-indent:36.0pt; mso-level-legacy-space:0cm; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:0cm; font-family:"Times New Roman";} ol {margin-bottom:0cm;} ul {margin-bottom:0cm;} --> <!--[if gte mso 10]> my understanding  these special RAPE SHILED RULES trump all other rules re character of victim 

<!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:2.0cm 42.5pt 2.0cm 3.0cm; mso-header-margin:36.0pt; mso-footer-margin:36.0pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> <!--[if gte mso 10]> here a scan page from conviser 2008 only change is lay out of paragraphs.

 

CHARACTER EVIDENCE

 

 In a Cri Case: Prosecution Cannot Initiate, but Accused Can

 

Even after Proposition 8, a California prosecutor in most kinds of cases cannot initiate the use of character evidence to prove the defendant's conduct on the occasion in question ("propensity" evidence).

 

How Defendant Proves Character

 

Federal Rule 404(a) permits a criminal defendant to prove a pertinent trait of his character (such as nonviolence)

 

CEC 1102 is slightly broader because it lets the defendant prove either a trait of his character or his character generally. However, practically, the defense usually wants to confine its good character evidence to the narrowest possible character trait, to confine the scope of the prosecutor's cross-examination with "do you know" or "have you heard" questions, as explained in para­graph

 

Victim in a Criminal Case

CEC 1103(a) allows a defendant to use not only reputation or opinion evidence, but also specific act evidence, to prove the crime victim's character as evidence of how the victim acted on the occasion in ques­tion. The prosecutor may rebut using all three types of evidence about the victim's character. In homicide and other cases where self-defense is an issue, if the defendant offers evidence that the victim is a violent person, the prosecutor may rebut with evidence that the defendant also was violent. [CEC 1103(b)]

However, BOTH CEC AND FRE, the rape shield laws prohibit all three types of evidence about the character of a sex-crime victim.)

Cases—Victim's Past Behavior Inadmissible

 

CEC 1103(c) is part of California's rape-shield law for criminal sexual-assault cases. It prohibits a criminal defendant from offering any type of evidence about the victim's prior sexual conduct, or the victim's manner of dress, to prove the victim's consent on the occasion in question. However, the prohibition does not apply to the victim's prior sexual conduct with the defendant. If the prosecutor initiates an inquiry into the victim's prior sexual conduct, the defendant may cross-examine and rebut. (Remember that Proposition 8 does not apply to evidence that is barred by the rape-shield law.)

CEC 1106 is California's rape-shield law for civil sex cases, such as sexual harassment and civil sexual assault. Under CEC 1106, the defendant cannot offer evidence of the plaintiff's prior sexual conduct to prove either consent or lack of injury, but the prohibition does not apply to prior sexual conduct with the defendant. If the plaintiff initiates the inquiry into prior sexual conduct, the defendant may cross-examine and rebut

 

 

Specific Acts of Misconduct—Prior Acts of Sexual Assault or 

 

Child Molestation

FRE and CEC permit propensity evidence in crimi­nal cases that charge sexual assault or child abuse. Thus, in a California rape case, a prosecutor's case-in-chief can include evidence that the defendant committed a prior rape, to prove his propensity to rape, as circumstantial evidence that he committed the rape in question. [CEC 1108] The prosecutor must disclose such evidence to the defense in advance, and the judge has discretion to exclude it under CEC 352.

 

The Federal Rules and the CEC are different in two respects:

 

First, Federal Rule 415 allows such propensity evidence in civil cases as well as criminal cases, but the CEC does not.

 

Second, the CEC permits propen­sity evidence in criminal cases that charge domestic violence or elder abuse, but the Federal Rules do not.

Thanks for the page. That's weird--b/c my book does not have this one. My barbri book states a totally opppsite rule. Thanks for the clarification.
Do you know what form of evidence of V's character can be used in RAPE case (criminal)? As same as the FRE-specific instance to show consent or prove the source of physical evidence?