P. v. Ordaz CA4/1
" 'The rule excluding evidence of criminal propensity is nearly three centuries old in the common law.' " (People v. Falsetta (1999) 21 Cal.4th 903, 913 (Falsetta).) This is because, as the United States Supreme Court has long recognized, propensity evidence is thought to cause jurors to "prejudge one with a bad general record and deny him a fair opportunity to defend against a particular charge." (Michelson v. United States (1948) 335 U.S. 469, 475–476 (Michelson).) In modern times, our Legislature has crafted limited statutory exceptions to this ancient common law rule with respect to certain specific crimes, including sexual offenses. (See Evid. Code, § 1108, subd. (a).) However, our Legislature has also adopted "safeguard[s]" (Falsetta, supra, at p. 917) to ensure that these statutory exceptions are not used to inappropriately place propensity evidence before a jury so as to deprive a defendant of a fair trial.
Comments on P. v. Ordaz CA4/1