Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

People v. Villatoro

California Supreme Court

Decided July 30, 2012No. S192531Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

CORRIGAN, J., Concurring and Dissenting.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s analysis. The majority concludes Evidence Code section 11081 permits the jury to draw a propensity inference from evidence that the defendant committed multiple charged crimes. In my view, such an instruction contradicts long-standing precedent, expands multiple sections of the Evidence Code in ways not contemplated by the Legislature, and sows the seeds for confusion and unintended consequences. Because the error in this case was clearly harmless, however, I concur in the result.

Section 1108 governs the…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. People v. WatsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  2. Michelson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
  3. People v. EwoldtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
  4. People v. BeagleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
  5. People v. FalsettaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API