Court Opinion

ID: 9747895
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:41:22.378673+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:28.256261
License: Public Domain

*301MOSK, J., Concurring.
I write separately to emphasize that this case does not involve Evidence Code section 1101 (section 1101) because the defendant’s prior conduct was offered for a purpose that did not require the fact finder to infer that the defendant had a particular disposition, propensity, or character trait.
Section 1101 is implicated when evidence of a person’s character is “offered to prove his or her conduct on a specified occasion.” (§ 1101, subd. (a).) Here, the evidence that Scott Stem (Stem) was involved in a stabbing incident was not offered for the purpose of proving conduct other than the stabbing. It was offered and admitted for the limited purpose of supporting the credibility of the victim’s testimony about Stem’s threat. The testimony concerning the stabbing was pertinent to and corroborative of the victim’s recollection of Stem’s language in the phone call—language that was the foundation of the charges of making criminal threats and attempting to dissuade a witness. Because this use of evidence concerning prior misconduct does not require the inference that if Stem was involved in a stabbing in the past he is likely to have acted in a specific manner on the occasion in question, section 1101 does not apply here.
It is not the case that evidence of the defendant’s prior bad acts is categorically admissible regardless of section 1101 when it is offered to bolster the witness’s credibility. Had the fact finder been required to draw inferences about Stem’s character or propensity in order for the evidence of Stem’s prior misconduct to have supported the victim’s credibility, section 1101 would have barred the admission of evidence of the prior acts. The credibility of the testifying witness is not a “fact (such as motive, opportunity, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident ...” other than disposition sufficient to permit its admission under section 1101, subdivision (b). (See People v. Thompson (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 467, 480-482 [159 Cal.Rptr. 615] [§ 1101 prohibits the admission of evidence of defendant’s prior misconduct to bolster a witness’s credibility by resort to evidence of the defendant’s disposition, character, or propensity].) Because no inference about Stem’s character or disposition was required in order for the evidence of the stabbing to accomplish the purpose for which it was admitted, section 1101 did not bar its admission here.
Appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied October 29, 2003. Kennard, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.