Opinion ID: 727785
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Commitment Offenses

Text: 7 Scott contends that the district court erred by allowing defense counsel to question him regarding the nature of his commitment offenses. This contention lacks merit. 8 A district court has broad discretion in admitting evidence and in determining whether the probative value of evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See Ruvalcaba v. City of Los Angeles, 64 F.3d 1323, 1328 (9th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1841 (1996). Accordingly, its rulings in such matters are reviewed only for an abuse of discretion. Id. 9 At trial, Scott sought two million dollars in emotional distress damages based on defendants' retaliatory conduct. In this context, defense counsel was permitted to ask Scott about his convictions for rape and child molestation in order to determine whether he could be experiencing distress from sources other than defendants' conduct. We do not discern any prejudice to Scott resulting from the admission of this testimony in his bench trial. Cf. Scott v. Lawrence, 36 F.3d 871, (9th Cir.1994) (prejudicial error for trial court to inform jury during voir dire that plaintiff had been convicted of sex crimes when evidence of priors never introduced during trial.)