Court Opinion

ID: 9627465
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:44:22.017795+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:43:45.749830
License: Public Domain

MOSK, J.
I dissent.
I cannot conclude, with the assurance of my colleagues, that the admission of evidence of prior offenses committed by defendant was erroneous, or that *637its admission requires reversal under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [299 P.2d 243]. There were sufficient similarities in the prior offenses, all against female children, to permit their introduction on the issue of identity.
That the prior offenses against little girls did not result in a killing is not sufficient justification to find dissimilarity and to conclude that the trial court improperly exercised its discretion in admitting the evidence. (People v. McCarty (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d 322, 326 [330 P.2d 484].)
I would affirm the conviction on the ground that there has been no miscarriage of justice. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13.)
Respondent’s petition for a rehearing was denied October 4, 1984. Mosk, J., and Lucas, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.