Opinion ID: 1173316
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of Holt's Prior Crimes with De George

Text: (4a) During cross-examination of Holt, the prosecutor asked him whether he and De George had committed numerous burglaries together. Defense counsel objected to the evidence of other crimes absent a showing of relevance. The trial court overruled the objection on the basis that the testimony established a prior relationship between Holt and De George. Holt then admitted having pulled four or five burglaries with De George. [6] The admission of any evidence that involves crimes other than those for which a defendant is being tried has a `highly inflammatory and prejudicial effect' on the trier of fact. ( People v. Thompson (1980) 27 Cal.3d 303, 314 [165 Cal. Rptr. 289, 611 P.2d 883].) The admission of this evidence produces an `over-strong tendency to believe the defendant guilty of the charge merely because he is a likely person to do such acts' (Wigmore, Evidence, § 194, p. 650). ( Id., at p. 317.) (5) For this reason, evidence of prior specific acts of misconduct is ordinarily inadmissible to attack a witness' credibility. ( People v. Anderson (1978) 20 Cal.3d 647, 650 [143 Cal. Rptr. 883, 574 P.2d 1235].) Even where such evidence is relevant for other purposes, and not offered to prove conduct or attack credibility, evidence of other crimes contains within itself a substantial degree of prejudice [and] should be received with `extreme caution,' its admissibility `examined with care,' and in the event of uncertainty as to its connection with the offense charged `the doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused.' [Citation.] ( Id., at p. 651.) The relationship between De George and Holt was never in issue. There was no dispute concerning the fact that they knew each other or that they were together on the night of Troia's death. (6) If an accused has not `actually placed that fact in issue,' evidence of uncharged offenses may not be admitted to prove it. ( Thompson, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 315.) Such evidence must be excluded under Evidence Code section 1101 because the only inference it directly seeks to establish is one of propensity to commit crimes in general. ( Thompson, supra, at p. 317.) (4b) Even assuming that the evidence was relevant to show the relationship between De George and Holt, the trial court did not examine its admissibility with care or with extreme caution, but merely stated: Well, we could have an offer of proof, but actually, so far as the relationship here is concerned, I think he [the prosecutor] can ask it. The trial court clearly erred. (Cf. People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 23-26 [164 Cal. Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468].)