EVIDENCE PRIOR CONDUCT TO PROVE SOME FACT

FEDERAL CALIFORNIA
FRE § 404(a) CEC § 1101(a)
To prove CHARACTER or DISPOSITION to commit an act
INADMISSIBLE INADMISSIBLE
BUT

In criminal case, must

FRE § 404(b) CEC § 1101(b)
give reasonable notice
ADMISSIBLE ADMISSIBLE
To prove:

MOTIVE INTENT COMMON PLAN OR

Dissimilar may be better
UNITED STATES v.
CUNNINGHAM
Addiction to Demerol
provides motive, and
falsifying drug texts
provides context to other
evidence, showing
motive
KNOWLEDGE
Should be similar, but need not be SCHEME
unique
Must be very similar
HUDDLESTON v. UNITED STATES
UNITED STATES v. BEASLEY
At issue was whether Huddleston
• Doctor shopping for drug,
knew tapes were stolen goods. TUCKER v. STATE
“Dilaudid,” insufficient to show
Evidence of prior arrest for sale of
intent to distribute Previous murder charge was
appliances for less than half price
• Evidence of prior drug dealing of not established, so could not
sufficient to support a finding by the
different drugs more prejudicial be used to show common
jury that Huddleston knew tapes
than narrowly tailored to show plan. Also, is one instance
stolen as well
intent in present case enough?

IDENTITY ABSENSE OF MISTAKE OF

PREPARATION OPPORTUNITY
Requires highest degree of commonality MISTAKE CONSENT
(like a signature) • Must be very similar
• Doctrine of chances

UNITED STATES v. CARRILO

Drug sale in balloons not unique enough

FRE § 404(b) TO PROVE HABIT CEC § 1105

ADMISSIBLE Habit is a semi-automatic response to a narrow specific situation ADMISSIBLE
GOOD EXAMPLE: BAD EXAMPLE:

HALLORAN v. VIRGINIA CHEMICALS, INC. PERRIN v. ANDERSON

• Products liability case where Halloran always heated
• An officer shot and killed a suspect, and claimed self-defense
refrigerant in a coffee can
• Court allowed evidence from eight other officers that
• In one instance, it exploded
suspect previously reacted violently toward police, to show
• Can warned against using immersion coil to heat, like
habit
Halloran did
• This is right on the line between habit and character
• Evidence of his unique habit admissible

FRE § 105 Evidence is admissible for ONE purpose, The court must
IF THEN
Limiting Evidence But NOT for another instruct the jury as to that fact

© 2020, Russell Jokela. All rights reserved.