P. v. Hodges CA5
Robert David Hodges appeals his convictions arising from his sexual abuse of his minor daughter, Jane Doe. He argues the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the evaluation of character evidence presented in his defense. Specifically, he argues the trial court improperly instructed the jury that evidence of a defendant’s character for kindness and respectfulness can, by itself, create reasonable doubt as to his guilt for the charged offenses. Hodges contends that in his case, the relevant character trait was “sexual normalcy,” and the trial court should have instructed the jury that character evidence of defendant’s sexual normalcy could create a reasonable doubt as to his guilt for the charged offenses. We reject Hodges’s contention because there was no character evidence presented regarding Hodges’s sexual proclivities and preferences or his putative sexual normalcy, hence there was no evidentiary basis for instructing the jury to consider such evidence. Fur
Comments on P. v. Hodges CA5