WPCM%  !.ֵ1UEØYgNx(ͲL#*9A2Tj9|ă={?J蔝K˰+5 R >Z2س彈cv]&/ qXZ$$ 0O$ 0D$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ B0%HP 4050 BACK HALLWAY0&d9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(1$OXXUSUS.,iB; /9eremy3|xU(9 Z(Times New Roman (;3$2#  0  .3  0  3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(#  y3SW[_cgkoTriangle Bullet*+ (_2623  ..*D+D (_25   ," <DL,23  ..," <DL,   *5+5 (_24  ) <DL)23  ..) <DL)  *2+2 (_23 ` &<<DL&23  ..&<<DL& ` */+/ (_22  #DL#23  ..#DL#  *,+, (_21   DL 23  .. DL  *)+) (_20 h DDL23  ..DDL h *&+& (_19  L23  ..L  *#+# (_18   L23  .. L  *>> (_17  2( 4 <DL223  Ԁ2( 4 <DL2  *DD (_16   ," <DL,23  Ԁ," <DL,   *55 (_15  ) <DL)23  Ԁ) <DL)  *22 (_14 ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ&<<DL& ` *// (_13  #DL#23  Ԁ#DL#  *,, (_12   DL 23  Ԁ DL  *)) (_11 h DDL23  ԀDDL h *&& (_10  L23  ԀL  (## &_9   L23  Ԁ L  (>> &_8  2( 4 <DL223  2( 4 <DL2  (DD &_7   ," <DL,23  ," <DL,   (55 &_6  ) <DL)23  ) <DL)  (22 &_5 ` &<<DL&23  &<<DL& ` (// &_4  #DL#23  #DL#  (,, &_3   DL 23   DL  ()) &_2 h DDL23  DDL h (&& &_1  L23  L  &## $_   L23   L  \  `&Times New Roman(M(3$ !_XXUSUS.,      1  (%$  1   d !wXXUSUS.,  _  ww RQ w  @@> > FIRSTDISTRICTAPPELLATEPROJECT  #RQQ R_#MONITORTRAININGSEMINAR#wQR~#RQw RQQR L @!!$@@VV"# wQ RN#  wMay12,2009 H # w #  w  UNCHARGEDACTS:  L EVIDENCECODESECTIONS1101,1108,&1109   # w `#  w@*# w  #  wԈ  @@00$JeremyPrice 8  # m# # w u# f  wStaffAttorney  \  # w  f:##w w#   p  8wdd8EvidenceCodesection1101,subdivision(b)   TheStatute  EvidenceCodesection1101,subdivision(b),permits theadmissionofevidencethata  personcommittedacrime,civilwrong,orotheractwhenrelevanttoprovesomefact   (suchasmotive,opportunity,intent,preparation,plan,knowledge,identity,absenceof   mistakeoraccident,orwhetheradefendantinaprosecutionforanunlawfulsexualactor   attemptedunlawfulsexualactdidnotreasonablyandingoodfaithbelievethatthevictim   consented)otherthanhisorherdispositiontocommitsuchanact.(Evid.Code,1101,    subd.(b).)   WhileEvidenceCodesection1101,subdivision(a),prohibitsadmissionofapersons   character,whetherintheformofopinion,reputationevidence,orevidenceofspecific   acts,toproveapersonsconductonaspecifiedoccasion,EvidenceCodesection1101,   subdivision(b)allowsforadmissionofevidenceofapersonsprioractswhenofferedto  proveafactotherthanhisorherdispositiontocommitthecontestedact.Suchprior  misconductevidencemaybeofferedtoprovesuchfactsasmotive,opportunity,intent,  preparation,plan,knowledge,identity,theabsenceofmistakeoraccidentorlackofa  reasonablebeliefthatapersonconsentedtoengaginginasexualact.  SimilarityRequirements  InPeoplev.Ewoldt(1994)7Cal.4th380,401,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtheldthat  evidenceofadefendantsunchargedmisconductisrelevantwheretheuncharged  misconductandthechargedoffensearesufficientlysimilartosupporttheinferencethat  theyaremanifestationsofacommondesignorplan.Thecourtdistinguishedbetweenthe  natureanddegreeofsimilarityrequiredinordertoestablishacommondesignorplan,as  opposedtothatrequiredtoproveintentoridentity.   Thecourtfoundtheleastdegreeofsimilaritybetweentheunchargedactandcharged " offenseisrequiredtoproveintent.(Id.atp.402.)Inordertobeadmissibletoprove # intent,theunchargedmisconductmustbesufficientlysimilartosupporttheinferencethat $  thedefendant probablyharboredthesameintentineachinstance.[citationomitted.] % ! (Ibid.) &!" Agreaterdegreeofsimilarityisrequiredtoproveexistenceofacommondesignorplan. (#$  Toestablishtheexistenceofacommondesignorplan,thecommonfeaturesmust )$% indicatetheexistenceofaplanratherthanaseriesofsimilarspontaneousacts,butthe *%& planthusrevealedneednotbedistinctiveorunusual.(Id.atp.403.)Priorbadactsmay +&' beadmittediftheydemonstrate circumstantiallythatthedefendantcommittedthe  chargedoffensepursuanttothesamedesignorplanheorsheusedincommittingthe  unchargedacts.Unlikeevidenceofunchargedactsusedtoproveidentity,theplanneed  notbeunusualordistinctive;itneedonlyexisttosupporttheinferencethatthedefendant  employedthatplanincommittingthechargedoffense.(Ibid.)  Finally,thecourtstatedthatthegreatestdegreeofsimilarityisrequiredtoproveidentity.   Foridentitytobeestablished,theunchargedconductandthechargedoffensemustshare   commonfeaturesthataresufficientlydistinctivesoastosupporttheinferencethatthe   samepersoncommittedbothacts.(Id.atp.403.) Thepatternandcharacteristicsofthe   crimesmustbesounusualanddistinctiveastobelikeasignature.(Ibid.)   UnchargedConductMustBeProvenByaPreponderanceoftheEvidence   BeforethetrieroffactmayconsiderevidenceofanunchargedactpursuanttoEvidence  Codesection1101,subdivision(b),theprosecutionmustprovebyapreponderanceofthe  evidencethatthedefendantinfactcommittedtheunchargedact(s)inquestion.(Peoplev.  Carpenter(1997)15Cal.4th312,382.)  AdmissionofUnchargedActsSubjecttoEvidenceCodesection352Balancing  Importantly,theCaliforniaSupremeCourthasalsoheldthatevidencethatmeetsthe  requirementsofEvidenceCodesection1101,subdivision(b),muststillbesubjectedtoa  weighingunderEvidenceCodesection352priortobeingadmitted.(Id.atp.404.)  Ewoldtreasoned: Evidenceofunchargedoffensesissoprejudicialthatitsadmission  requiresextremelycarefulanalysis.[Citations.](Peoplev.Smallwood(1986)42Cal.3d  415,428,228Cal.Rptr.913,722P.2d197;seealsoPeoplev.Thompson(1988)45Cal.3d  86,109,246Cal.Rptr.245,753P.2d37.)Since substantialprejudicialeffect[is]  inherentin[such]evidence,unchargedoffensesareadmissibleonlyiftheyhave   substantialprobativevalue.(Peoplev.Thompson(1980)27Cal.3d303,318,165 ! Cal.Rptr.289,611P.2d883,italicsinoriginal,fn.omitted.)[]Althoughtheevidence " ofdefendantsunchargedcriminalconductinthiscaseisrelevanttoestablishacommon # designorplan,tobeadmissiblesuchevidencemustnotcontraveneotherpolicies $  limitingadmission,suchasthosecontainedinEvidenceCodesection352.[Citations.] %!! (Peoplev.Thompson,supra,45Cal.3datp.109,246Cal.Rptr.245,753P.2d37.)We &"" thusproceedtoexaminewhethertheprobativevalueoftheevidenceofdefendants '## unchargedoffensesissubstantiallyoutweighedbytheprobabilitythatitsadmission ($$ [would]...createsubstantialdangerofundueprejudice,ofconfusingtheissues,orof )%% misleadingthejury.(Evid.Code,352.) *&&  +'' Thefollowingfactorsshouldbeconsideredwhendeterminingwhetherevidence  otherwiseadmissibleunderEvidenceCodesection1101,subdivision(b),should  nonethelessbeexcludedpursuanttoEvidenceCodesection352:    (y3" 3"   3!23  0    thematerialityofthefacttobeprovedordisproved; 3!)"݌(#(# Ќ  " 3"   3"23  0    theprobativevalueoftheothercrimesevidencetoproveordisprovethefacts; 3"#݌ (#(# Ќ  " 3"   3#23  0    theexistenceofanyruleorpolicyrequiringexclusioneveniftheevidenceis   relevant;and 3#$݌ (#(# Ќ  " 3"   3%23  0    theremotenessintimeoftheunchargedact(s). 3%C%݌ (#(# Ќ  UnchargedActsNeedNotPreDateChargedActs   AlthoughevidenceadmittedpursuanttoEvidenceCodesection1101,subdivision(b),is   oftenreferredtoas prioractsevidence,evidenceofasubsequentaswellasaprior   offenseisadmissible.(Peoplev.Balcom(1994)7Cal.4th414,422423,425.)  DefendantMayStipulatetoElementsofChargedOffensetoAvoidAdmissioninto  EvidenceofUnchargedOnes  InanefforttoprecludetheprosecutionfromintroducingevidencepursuanttoEvidence  Codesection1101,subdivision(b),thedefendantmaystipulatetocertainelementsput  intodoubtbyhisorherpleaofnotguilty.(Peoplev.Bruce(1989)208Cal.App.3d1099,  11031106.)Theprosecutionneednotacceptthestipulation,butanoffertostipulatemay  maketheprofferedevidencelessprobativeandmorecumulative,weighinginfavorof  exclusionunderEvidenceCodesection352.(Peoplev.Thornton(2000)85Cal.App.4th  44,49.)  AdmissionofUnchargedActsEvidenceReviewedforAbuseofDiscretion  5wwOnappeal,appellatecourtsreviewatrialcourtsrulingunderEvidenceCodesection ! 1101forabuseofdiscretion.(#w5w:+#5wwPeoplev.Roldan#w5w ,#5ww(2005)35Cal.4th646,705.)#w5wb,# " HarmlessErrorStandard $  AlthoughCaliforniaappellatecourtsroutinelyapplythestateharmlesserrortestfoundin &"" Peoplev.Watson(1956)46Cal.2d818toclaimsofimproperlyadmittedevidence '## pursuanttoEvidenceCodesection1101,inordertopreservetheissueforfederalreview ($$ andtogainthemoredefensefriendlyfederalChapmanharmlesserrorstandard,appellate )%% counselshouldfederalizetheclaimasadueprocessviolation,perhapscitingMcKinneyv. *&& Rees(9thCir.1993)993F.2d1378,1385. +'' ЇExamplesofErroneousAdmissionofUnchargedActs  Ineachofthefollowingpublishedcases,appellatecourtsfounderrorintheadmissionof  unchargedactspursuanttoEvidenceCodesection1101,subdivision(b):    (yy " 3"   3123  0    Peoplev.Avitia(2005)127Cal.App.4th185,193 31?1݌ (#(# Ќ  " 3"   3123  0    Peoplev.Felix(1993)14Cal.App.4th997,1008 31+2݌ (#(# Ќ  " 3"   3223  0    Peoplev.Bergschneider(1989)211Cal.App.3d144,162 323݌ (#(# Ќ  " 3"   3323  0    Peoplev.Bruce(1989)208Cal.App.3d1099 334݌ (#(# Ќ  " 3"   3423  0    Peoplev.Valentine(1988)2907Cal.App.3d697 344݌ (#(# Ќ  " 3"   3523  0    Peoplev.Harvey(1984)163Cal.App.3d90,101 355݌ (#(# Ќ  TherehavebeenacoupleofrecentunpublishedvictoriesinthisareaintheFirstDistrict   aswell:   ! !  (yy " 3"   3723  0    Peoplev.Colombo,2007WL2330716 377݌(#(# Ќ  " 3"   3823  0    Peoplev.Joachim,2008WL1801348 388݌(#(# Ќ  UnchargedActsandJurySelection  DivisionThreeoftheFirstDistrictissuedaninterestingopinioninthisareajustlast  monthinPeoplev.Jerome,2009WL1101597.Beforejuryselectioninthedefendants  kidnappingandrobberycase,thetrialcourtruledthattheprosecutioncouldintroduce  evidenceofthedefendantspriorarrestforrobberyunderEvidenceCodesection1101,  subdivision(b),toshowthedefendant'sintentandacommonplanorscheme.The  defendantwasneverprosecutedforthisincident,anddefensecounselobjectedtothe  admissionofevidenceconcerningit.Duringvoirdire,thetrialcourtprohibiteddefense  counselfromaskingpotentialjurorsabouttheirabilitytofollowajudgesinstructions  aboutthelimitedpurposeforwhichsuchprioractsevidencewouldcomein.Following   thedefendant'sconvictions,defensecounselbroughtanewtrialmotionbasedonthetrial ! courtspreclusionofdefensecounselsproposedvoirdirequestions.Applyingthe " federalChapmanprejudicestandard,theCourtofAppealreversedthedefendants # convictionsandsentence,holdingthatitwasprejudicialerrortorestrictcounselfrom $  askingsuchquestionsinvoirdire.Thedefendanthadarighttoexplorewhetherjurors %!! couldremainfairandimpartialarbitersiftheyheardhewasinvolvedinasimilar &"" unchargedincident,andcouldrestricttheirconsiderationofthatincidenttoitsproper '## evidentiaryroleorproofofintentandcommonplanorschemebutnothisguiltofthe ($$ chargedoffense. )%%   +'' CALCRIMno.375  TheJudicialCouncilinstructiontobegivenwhenevidenceofunchargedactsare  admittedisfoundatCALCRIMno.375,whichprovides:     [ThePeoplepresentedevidencethatthedefendantcommitted   ((another/other)offense[s]/theoffense[s]of)that(was/were)notchargedinthiscase.]      [ThePeoplepresentedevidence(ofotherbehaviorbythedefendantthat  wasnotchargedinthiscase/thatthedefendant).]  YoumayconsiderthisevidenceonlyifthePeoplehaveprovedbya  preponderanceoftheevidencethatthedefendantinfactcommittedthe  (unchargedoffense[s]/act[s]).Proofbyapreponderanceoftheevidenceisa  differentburdenofproofthanproofbeyondareasonabledoubt.Afactis  provedbyapreponderanceoftheevidenceifyouconcludethatitismore  likelythannotthatthefactistrue.  IfthePeoplehavenotmetthisburden,youmustdisregardthisevidence  entirely.  Ifyoudecidethatthedefendantcommittedthe(uncharged   offense[s]/act[s]),youmay,butarenotrequiredto,considerthatevidence ! forthelimitedpurposeofdecidingwhetherornot: "  %!! B`  B`  '## [Thedefendantwasthepersonwhocommittedtheoffense[s] ($$ allegedinthiscase](./;or) )%%  +'' Ї[Thedefendantactedwiththeintenttointhiscase](./;or)    [Thedefendanthadamotivetocommittheoffense[s]alleged   inthiscase](./;or)      [Thedefendantknewwhen(he/she)allegedlyactedinthis   case](./;or)     [Thedefendant'sallegedactionsweretheresultofmistakeor  accident](./;or)    [Thedefendanthadaplan[orscheme]tocommitthe  offense[s]allegedinthiscase](./;or)    [Thedefendantreasonablyandingoodfaithbelievedthat    consented](./;or)    " [Thedefendant.] %!! ` %I` I~dfd[Inevaluatingthisevidence,considerthesimilarityorlackofsimilarity '## betweentheuncharged(offense[s]/[and]act[s])andthecharged ($$ offense[s].] )%% Donotconsiderthisevidenceforanyotherpurpose[exceptforthelimited +'' purposeof].  [Donotconcludefromthisevidencethatthedefendanthasabadcharacter  orisdisposedtocommitcrime.]  Ifyouconcludethatthedefendantcommittedthe(unchargedoffense[s]/   act[s]),thatconclusionisonlyonefactortoconsideralongwithalltheother   evidence.Itisnotsufficientbyitselftoprovethatthedefendantisguiltyof   [orthatthehasbeenproved].The   Peoplemuststillprove(the/each)(charge/[and]allegation)beyonda   reasonabledoubt.   "O4OTrialcourtsmustgiveCALCRIMno.375onrequestwhenevidencehasbeenadmitted   pursuanttoEvidenceCodesection1101,subdivision(b).(Peoplev.Carpenter(1997)15  Cal.4th312,382.)However,intheabsenceofsucharequest,thecourtssuasponteduty  togivethisinstructiononlyarisesinthe occasionalextraordinarycaseinwhich  unprotestedevidenceofpastoffensesisadominantpartoftheevidenceagainstthe  accused,andisbothhighlyprejudicialandminimallyrelevanttoanylegitimatepurpose.  (Peoplev.Collie(1981)30Cal.3d43,63!64.)   Propensity:EvidenceCodesections1108and1109   Introduction    Theadmissionofanyevidencethatinvolvescrimesotherthanthoseforwhicha  defendantisbeingtriedhasahighlyinflammatoryandprejudicialeffectonthetrierof  fact.(Peoplev.Thompson(1980)27Cal.3d303,314[citationsomitted].)In  recognitionofthiseffect,EvidenceCodesection1101,subdivision(a),  prohibits   admissionofevidenceofapersonscharacter,includingevidenceofcharacterintheform ! ofspecificinstancesofunchargedmisconduct,toprovetheconductofthatpersonona " specifiedoccasion.(Peoplev.Ewoldt(1994)7Cal.4th380,393.) # Theruleexcludingtheuseofpriormisconducttoshowadefendantspropensityto % ! committhecurrentlychargedoffenseservesatleastthreekeypurposes:first,it relieves &!" thedefendantoftheoftenunfairburdenofdefendingagainstboththechargedoffense '"# andtheotherunchargedoffenses;second,it promotesjudicialefficiencybyavoiding (#$ protractedmini-trialstodeterminethetruthorfalsityofthepriorcharge;and,third,it )$%  guardsagainstundueprejudicearisingfromtheadmissionofthedefendantsother *%& offenses.(Peoplev.Falsetta(1999)21Cal.4th903,915-916.) +&' ЇTherefore,theCaliforniaSupremeCourthas repeatedlywarnedthattheadmissibilityof  thistypeofevidencemustbescrutinizedwithgreatcare.(Peoplev.Thompson,supra,  27Cal.3datp.314[citationsomitted].)Despitethisadmonition,inadoptingEvidence  Codesections1108and1109,theLegislatureenactedstatutesthatpermittheintroduction  ofevidenceofprioractstoshowpropensitywheredefendantsarechargedwithsexual  offenses,domesticviolence,adultordependentabuse,andchildabuse.TheCalifornia   SupremeCourthasupheldtheconstitutionalityofEvidenceCodesection1108,which   dealswiththeintroductionofpriorsexoffensestoshowpropensity(Peoplev.Falsetta,   supra,21Cal.4th903),andanumberofappellatecourtshaveaffirmedthe   constitutionalityofEvidenceCodesection1109,whichdealswiththeintroductionof   prioractsofdomesticviolence,adultordependentabuse,andchildabusetoshow   propensity(Peoplev.Cabrera(2007)152Cal.App.4th695;Peoplev.Williams(2008)   159Cal.App.4th141).   TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasleftopenthegeneralquestionof whetherastate  lawwouldviolatetheDueProcessClauseifitpermittedtheuseofpriorcrimes  evidencetoshowpropensitytocommitachargedcrime.(Estellev.McGuire(1991)502  U.S.62,75,fn.5).  EvidenceCodesection1108  EvidenceCodesection1108,subdivision(a),provides: Inacriminalactioninwhichthe  defendantisaccusedofasexualoffense,evidenceofthedefendantscommissionof  anothersexualoffenseoroffensesisnotmadeinadmissiblebySection1101,ifthe  evidenceisnotinadmissiblepursuanttoSection352.(Evid.Code,1108,subd.(a).)  Beforethetrieroffactmayconsiderevidenceofanunchargedsexoffenseforthe  purposeofestablishingthedefendantspropensitytocommitsuchoffenses,the  prosecutionmustprovebyapreponderanceoftheevidencethatthedefendantinfact   committedtheunchargedsexoffense(s)inquestion.(Peoplev.Carpenter(1997)15 ! Cal.4th312,382;Peoplev.James(2000)81Cal.App.4th1343,1359.) " Moreover,eveniftheprosecutionmakesthisshowing,thechallengedevidencemaynot $  beadmittedifdoingsowouldviolateEvidenceCodesection352.(Evid.Code,1101, %!! subd.(a).)Infact,thestatutesrequirementthattheadmissionofunchargedsexoffenses &"" toshowpropensitybesubjectedtoaweighinginaccordancewithEvidenceCodesection '## 352that,intheCaliforniaSupremeCourtsestimation,keptEvidenceCodesection1101 ($$ fromviolatingthedefendantsfederaldueprocessrights.(Peoplev.Falsetta,supra,21 )%% Cal.4thatp.917[ wethinkthetrialcourtsdiscretiontoexcludepropensityevidence *&& undersection352savessection1108fromdefendantsdueprocesschallenge].) +'' AccordingtoFalsetta:  Ratherthanadmitorexcludeeverysexoffenseadefendantcommits,trial  judgesmustconsidersuchfactorsasitsnature,relevance,andpossible  remoteness,thedegreeofcertaintyofitscommissionandthelikelihoodof  confusing,misleading,ordistractingthejurorsfromtheirmaininquiry,its   similaritytothechargedoffense,itslikelyprejudicialimpactonthejurors,   theburdenonthedefendantindefendingagainsttheunchargedoffense,   andtheavailabilityoflessprejudicialalternativestoitsoutrightadmission,   suchasadmittingsomebutnotallofthedefendant'sothersexoffenses,or   excludingirrelevantthoughinflammatorydetailssurroundingtheoffense.   kk(Ibid.)   Therefore,whileitisstronglyrecommendedthatappellatecounselcontinuetoraise  federaldueprocessobjectionstoEvidenceCodesection1108onitsface,thecase  specificchallengestotheadmissionofunchargedsexoffensestoshowpropensityshould  oftenfocusontheseEvidenceCodesection352factorsdiscussedinFalsetta.  Onappeal,thetrialcourtsadmissionofevidencepursuanttoEvidenceCodesection  1108(andEvidenceCodesection352)willbereviewedunderthedeferentialabuseof  discretionstandard.(Peoplev.Wesson(2006)138Cal.App.4th959,969.)    CALCRIMno.1191    CALCRIMno.1191setsforththeJudicialCouncilspatternjuryinstructiontobe  providedwhenevidenceofunchargedsexoffensesisadmittedpursuanttoEvidence  Codesection1108:  ThePeoplepresentedevidencethatthedefendantcommittedthecrime[s]of ! that(was/were)notchargedinthiscase. " (This/These)crime[s](is/are)definedforyouintheseinstructions. # YoumayconsiderthisevidenceonlyifthePeoplehaveprovedbya % ! preponderanceoftheevidencethatthedefendantinfactcommittedthe &!" unchargedoffense[s].Proofbyapreponderanceoftheevidenceisa '"# differentburdenofprooffromproofbeyondareasonabledoubt.Afactis (#$ provedbyapreponderanceoftheevidenceifyouconcludethatitismore )$% likelythannotthatthefactistrue. *%&  +&' IfthePeoplehavenotmetthisburdenofproof,youmustdisregardthis  evidenceentirely.  Ifyoudecidethatthedefendantcommittedtheunchargedoffense[s],you  may,butarenotrequiredto,concludefromthatevidencethatthedefendant  wasdisposedorinclinedtocommitsexualoffenses,andbasedonthat   decision,alsoconcludethatthedefendantwaslikelytocommit[anddid   commit],aschargedhere.Ifyouconclude   thatthedefendantcommittedtheunchargedoffense[s],thatconclusionis   onlyonefactortoconsideralongwithalltheotherevidence.Itisnot   sufficientbyitselftoprovethatthedefendantisguiltyof.ThePeoplemuststillprove(the/each)(charge/[and]   allegation)beyondareasonabledoubt.   [Donotconsiderthisevidenceforanyotherpurpose[exceptforthelimited  purposeof].]  sus (CALCRIMno.1191.)  AstheAuthoritysectionoftheinstructionmakesclear,propensityevidencealoneisnot  sufficienttosupportaconvictionofthechargedoffensebeyondareasonabledoubt.  (Peoplev.Hill(2001)86Cal.App.4th273,277278.)  Perhapsthemostcontroversialaspectofthisinstructionisthatthejuryisinstructednot  onlythatitmayfind thedefendantwasdisposedorinclinedtocommitsexualoffenses,  andbasedonthatdecision,alsoconcludethatthedefendantwaslikelytocommitthe  chargedoffense,butthejurymayalsobeinstructedthatitmayconcludethedefendant   didcommitthechargedoffenseifitmakesafindingofdisposition.(CALCRIMno.   1191[fourthparagraph].) ! Astheinstructionscommentarysectionpointsout,oneappellatecourt suggestsusing # moregeneraltermstoinstructthejuryhowtheymayuseevidenceofothersexual $  offenses,leavingparticularinferencesfortheargumentofcounselandthejurys % ! commonsense.(CALCRIMno.1191,quotingPeoplev.James,supra,81Cal.App.4th &!" atp.1357,fn.8.)WhileJameshasgenerallynotbeenfollowedbyotherappellatecourts, '"# theJudicialCouncilhasincludedthefollowingalternativetothefourthparagraphofthe (#$ instructionmodeledonJames: )$% Ifyoudecidethatthedefendantcommittedtheothersexualoffense[s],you +&' mayconsiderthatevidenceandweighittogetherwithalltheotherevidence  receivedduringthetrialtohelpyoudeterminewhetherthedefendant  committed.Remember,however,that  evidenceofanothersexualoffenseisnotsufficientalonetofindthe  defendantguiltyof.ThePeoplemuststill  prove(the/each)(charge/[and]allegation)of   beyondareasonabledoubt.   tfInFalsetta,becausetheCaliforniaSupremeCourtfoundnofederalconstitutional   impedimenttotheadmissionofunchargedsexoffenseevidencetoshowpropensity,the   Courtsubjectedtheallegedinstructionalerrorsinthatcasetothestateprejudicestandard   foundinPeoplev.Watson(1956)46Cal.2d818,836.(Peoplev.Falsetta,supra,21   Cal.4thatp.925[finding verylittlelikelihoodthatthejurywouldconvictFalsettabased   onthepriorcrimesalone].)   TheJudicialCouncilhasalsoincludedsomeRELATEDISSUESalongwithCALCRIM  no.1191,including:    (yy " 3"   3و23  0    ExpertTestimony:EvidenceCodesection1108doesnotauthorizeexpertopinion  evidenceofsexualpropensityduringtheprosecutionscase-in-chief.(Peoplev.  McFarland(2000)78Cal.App.4th489,495!496.) 3و݌(#(# Ќ  " 3"   323  0    RebuttalEvidence:Whentheprosecutionhasintroducedevidenceofothersexual  offensesunderEvidenceCodesection1108,subdivision(a),thedefendantmay  introducerebuttalcharacterevidenceintheformofopinionevidence,reputation  evidence,andevidenceofspecificincidentsofconductundersimilar  circumstances.(Peoplev.Callahan(1999)74Cal.App.4th356,378!379.) 3݌(#(# Ќ  " 3"   3!23  0    SubsequentOffensesAdmissible: [E]videnceofsubsequentlycommittedsexual   offensesmaybeadmittedpursuanttoEvidenceCodesection1108.(Peoplev. ! Medina(2003)114Cal.App.4th897,903.) 3!N݌"(#(# Ќ  " 3"   3ώ23  0    EvidenceofAcquittal:Ifthecourtadmitsevidencethatthedefendantcommitteda $  sexualoffensethatthedefendantwaspreviouslyacquittedof,thecourtmustalso %!! admitevidenceoftheacquittal.(Peoplev.Mullens(2004)119Cal.App.4th648, &"" 663.) 3ώ݌'##(#(# Ќ  InPeoplev.Reliford(2003)29Cal.4th1007,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtupheldthe )%% oldCALJICinstructionderivedfromEvidenceCodesection1108,concludingthatthe *&& instructiondidnotimpermissiblyallowthejurytoconvictthedefendantofthecharged +'' offensesunderthepreponderance-of-the-evidencestandardbecauseitcouldusethat  standardtofindthedefendantcommittedtheunchargedact(s)toprovethedefendants  propensity.Ithasbeenheldthat [t]heversionofCALJICNo.2.50.01consideredin  Relifordissimilarinallmaterialrespectsto...CALCRIMNo.1191...inits  explanationofthelawonpermissiveinferencesandtheburdenofproof.(Peoplev.  Schnabel(2007)150Cal.App.4th83,87,fn.omitted.)   UnchargedSexOffensesOnlyAdmissibleInCasesWhereSexOffenseCharged   InPeoplev.Walker(2006)139Cal.App.4th782,thedefendantwaschargedwith   murderingaprostitute.Thetrialcourtpermittedtheprosecutiontointroduceevidenceof   thedefendantspriorsexoffensesagainstprostitutespursuanttoEvidenceCodesection   1108toshowpropensity.Thecourtalsoadmittedtheprioractsevidencepursuantto   EvidenceCodesection1101,subdivision(b).TheSecondDistrictCourtofAppeal   concludedthatitwaserrortointroducetheevidencetoshowpropensitypursuantto  EvidenceCodesection1108becausethedefendantwasnotchargedwithasexcrimein  thecurrentmatter.Bythestatutesownterms,EvidenceCodesection1108limitsits  applicationsto criminalaction[s]inwhichthedefendantisaccusedofasexualoffense.  ...(Evid.Code,1108,subd.(a).)Subdivision(d)ofEvidenceCodesection1108  thendefinesthephrase sexualoffense,andmurderisnotincludedinthelistofsexual  offenses.(Evid.Code,1108,subd.(d).)TheCourtofAppeal,however,deemedthe  errorharmless.  Recently,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtdeclinedtoapproveordisapproveoftheanalysis  inWalker.InPeoplev.Story(2009)45Cal.4th1282,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtheld  thatanopenmurderchargeprosecutedasfirstdegreemurderonarape-felony-murder  theoryisasexualoffenseunderEvidenceCodesection1108.Storyreasoned: first  degreefelonymurderwithrapetheunderlyingfelonyinvolves,asanelement,conduct  proscribedbyPenalCodesection261,thestatutedefiningrape,oratleastanattemptto   engageinthatconduct.Accordingly,evenassuming,withoutdeciding,thatWalkerwas ! correctinlimitingtheapplicabilityofsection1108tooffensesinwhichsexual " misconductisanelementorcomponentofthecrimeitself,theCourtofAppealerredin # extendingitsholdingtothiscase. $   EvidenceCodesection1109  &"" TheStatute (#$ EvidenceCodesection1109permitstheintroductionofunchargedactsofdomestic *%& violence,elderordependentabuse,andchildabusetoshowpropensitytocommitsuch +&' acts.ThestatuteismodeledonEvidenceCodesection1108,somuchofthediscussion  abovepertainingtoEvidenceCodesection1108appliestoEvidenceCodesection1109  aswell.Accordingly,thissectionofthesematerialswillnotgointoasmuchdetailasthe  precedingone.  EvidenceCodesection1109'sprovisionsdealingwithdomesticviolencestate: Exceptas   providedinsubdivision(e)or(f),inacriminalactioninwhichthedefendantisaccused   ofanoffenseinvolvingdomesticviolence,evidenceofthedefendantscommissionof   otherdomesticviolenceisnotmadeinadmissiblebySection1101iftheevidenceisnot   inadmissiblepursuanttoSection352.(Evid.Code,1109,subd.(a)(1).)   EvidenceCodesection1109'sprovisionsdealingwithelderordependentabusestate:    Exceptasprovidedinsubdivision(e)or(f),inacriminalactioninwhichthedefendant   isaccusedofanoffenseinvolvingabuseofanelderordependentperson,evidenceofthe   defendantscommissionofotherabuseofanelderordependentpersonisnotmade  inadmissiblebySection1101iftheevidenceisnotinadmissiblepursuanttoSection352.  (Evid.Code,1109,subd.(a)(2).)  EvidenceCodesection1109'sprovisionsdealingwithchildabusestate: Exceptas  providedinsubdivision(e)or(f)andsubjecttoahearingconductedpursuanttoSection  352,whichshallincludeconsiderationofanycorroborationandremotenessintime,ina  criminalactioninwhichthedefendantisaccusedofanoffenseinvolvingchildabuse,  evidenceofthedefendantscommissionofchildabuseisnotmadeinadmissibleby  Section1101iftheevidenceisnotinadmissiblepursuanttoSection352.(Evid.Code,  1109,subd.(a)(3).)  UnchargedActsMoreThan10YearsOldPresumptivelyInadmissible  WhileEvidenceCodesection1108doesnotcontainanylimitationsontheageofthe   unchargedconduct,EvidenceCodesection1109doesnotprovidefortheadmissionof ! unchargedactsmorethantenyearsold unlessthecourtdeterminesthattheadmissionof " thisevidenceisintheinterestsofjustice.(Evid.Code,1109,subd.(e).) # UnchargedActsAdmittedtoProvePropensityMayBeConsideredWithRespectToAll %!! Charges &"" InPeoplev.Dallas(2008)165Cal.App.4th940,theappellatecourtheldthatwhenprior ($$ actsofchildabuseareadmissibleinconnectionwithonecountofacriminalactionto )%% showpropensitytocommitsuchoffenses,thejuryisalsoentitledtoconsidertheprior *&& actsinconnectionwithallcounts,subjectonlytothetrialcourtsdiscretiontoexclude +'' evidencewhenitsprejudicialeffectwouldoutweighitsprobativevalue.  RareVictory:ChargedActsMayNotBeConsideredToProvePropensity  InPeoplev.Quintanilla(2005)132Cal.App.4th572,DivisionThreeoftheFirstDistrict  CourtofAppealheldthatEvidenceCodesection1109islimitedtoevidenceof   unchargedinstancesofdomesticviolencetoprovethedefendantspropensitytocommit   suchoffenses.Theappellatecourtconcludedthatbecauseevidenceofchargedoffenses   isnotsubjecttoexclusionbasedonEvidenceCodesection352,thoseoffensescannever   beusedaspropensityevidencepursuanttoEvidenceCodesection1108orsection1109.   AstheCourtofAppealnoted,defendantscannotobjecttotheadmissibilityofthe   evidenceoftheotherchargedoffensesonEvidenceCodesection352grounds.   CALCRIMInstructions   TheJudicialCouncilsmodelinstructionforevidenceofunchargeddomesticviolenceis  foundatCALCRIMno.852.Themodelinstructionforevidenceofunchargedelderor  dependentabuseisfoundatCALCRIMno.853.Thoseinstructionsarenotreprintedin  thesematerials,asthepartsdealingwithpropensityevidenceingeneralaresubstantially  thesameasthecorrespondingpartsofCALCRIMno.1191dealingwithsexoffenses.