WPC( $ 4x90x7Ix-;W';( o׷{ f;X~mr:ߗ3DRR|zpmEFv"9 HtiՖAe2p[|#S`"=(Dn~]f!%IC_X$6LDFfiSre6SC@[@~,BQA}i(TxoۿA&jAKbPp}0ar>6*0R(V[bF?n]`YDE²C }$ݞ7u)sE0]C`7|[0A)Q= x0qAvꎴI }F)|fm kՇPMtuS28N-cȀ*]kh3u^,ni8L 5@:nM{c"qdaۚ—NpA+4^+Ӡ+lCY#U N % 0 ^ } N  0=Enw4 m 01, 0=] 0 0>z 0= 0' 0' 0'C 0'j 0' 09 0 02 0 0: 05 0\Q 0  0k 0/" 0Q! 06Q" 0" 0:# 0L#n$ 0 &U6#'U>Y'U*'U N'U (U /(U.O(U.}(}(}(}(}(}(}(}(}(}(}(}(}(}(}(}(}(}(}(}(}(}(}(}(}(}(}(}(}(}(}(}(}(}(}(}(}( B( B*(HP LaserJet 5,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(Z)$USUS.,   .   9,USUS., d   d (,(#,(#(  AX )1dE01AAW )1qdE#1A1  2 8 3  4 H  5   6 X   7  0  8 h  9 @  10 x  11 P 12  13 ` 14  15  p 16  17 0  18 " 19 @ $ 20 !& 21 P#( 22 $( * 23 `&!, 24 '8#. 25 p)$0 26 *H&2 27 ,'4 28(39$ )!USUS.,     d `s New RomanularXPPH6X`(s New Roman Regularx6X@@7  `(s New Roman Regularpx  @@,z.:i+003|xU0.Normal<:Definition T<SP:Definition L    ;1` hp x (#;    8.` hp x (#886Definition(&H1   c.(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regularc   XXXc.(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regularc(&H2 c.(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regularc XXXc.(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regularc(&H3 c.(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regularc XXXc.(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regularc(&H4 XXXc.(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regularc XXXc.(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regularc(&H5 c.(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regularc XXXc.(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regularc(&H6 c.(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regularc XXXc.(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regularc20Address8SP6Blockquote    ;1` hp x (#;    8.` hp x (#8,*CITE,dl*CODEK+<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS,\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis6&4Hyperlink                                        <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K+<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXS,\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk (#/K+<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS,\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk (#/:p8zTop of For    ?-%2A`Arial?  XXXS,\  `&Times New RomanS  0dl.SampleXXXK+<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS,\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK+<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS,\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable2 0Comment    ԫ`s New RomanularXPPH6X`(s New Roman Regularx6X@@7  `(s New Roman Regularpx  @@(2>$ )!USUS.,    XXXҀ  0  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular`H6X`(<  9`(Courier<6X9`+Courier d&0 d d )!USUS.,    _r'r CLANCYLITIGATIONGROUP   PatrickE.Clancy,SBN60805 t Dr.DemosthenesLorandos,SBN177644 8 1600S.MainSt.,Suite185 L WalnutCreek,CA94596  Tel:(925)2564600  eFax:(888)8025089 H  AttorneysforDefendant   8/gC/XXdd8 XX0~ @> > SUPERIORCOURTOFCALIFORNIA,COUNTYOF  0  THEPEOPLEOFTHESTATEOF 7   )  CaseNo. ,|  CALIFORNIA, /      7   )   @  0  0 (#(#0/ (# (#0/ (#/ (#0(#(#07(#(#07(#7(#)  NOTICEANDMOTION   )  UNDEREVIDENCEx (#(#     / Plaintiff, 7   )  _CODE_Ԁ782TO <     /      7   )  ADMITPRIORSEXUAL P 0  0 (#(#0/ (# (#0/ (#/ (# / vs.     7   )  KNOWLEDGE&ACTSOF(#(#     /      7   )  VICTIM      /      7   )  Date: L     /      7   )  Time: `     / Defendant. 7   )  Dept: $ _________________________________)    TOTHEDISTRICTATTORNEYOF____________COUNTY:  p   PLEASETAKENOTICEthatonthedateandtime  indicatedabovetheDefendantwillmovethecourt 0  pursuanttoEvidenceCode782toadmitthetestimonyof " (Insertnameofwitness) .Saidmotionwillbebasedupon @ $ theattachedMemorandumofPointsandAuthoritiesandthe !& attachedDeclarationof(Insertnameof_declarant_) . P#(   Dated: /      7      $( * 0  0 (#(#0/ (# (#0/ (#/ (#0(#(#07(#(#07(#7(#_____________________`&!,(#(#     /      7   AttorneyforDefendant '8#.   *H&2 @$ SUMMARYOFFACTS       / Setforthbriefsummaryofyourfactsl  8 @  MEMORANDUMOFPOINTSANDAUTHORITIES  H   @ff,I   @  GENERALRULESONADMISSIBILITYOF X   @ SEXUALHISTORYTOATTACKCREDIBILITY   l    @ff, A h    @ THESECTION782WRITTENDECLARATION  @      Attachedtothismotion,andincorporatedby < reference,istheDeclarationof(Insertnameof  _declarant_);.Thisdeclaration,basedoninformationand L belief,isanofferofproof,incompliancewithEvidence $ Codesection782(a)(2),bywhichthedefendantseeksa \ hearingandrulingontheadmissibilityofthepriorsexual 4 conductofthecomplainingwitness.Theofferofproofis l specificinthatitdescribesthepurposeofthetestimony, D! thenameofthewitness(es)andtheprecisecontentofthe |# testimonytobeelicited.(See_Semsch_v.HenryMayo !T% _Newhall_ԀMemorialHospital(1985)171CA3d162,167;People "' v._Schmies_(1996)44CA4th38,53.)*Ifappropriateadda $d) sentenceortwototheeffectthatitincludes % + corroboratingnotesbytheCPSworkerand/orpolice $'t"- reports,dependingonyourcase.**Ԁ (#/   Certainotherpleadings,suchasapetitionforwrit 4*%1 ofmandateandaffidavitsinsupportthereofinthecivil + '3 context,mustbebasedonpersonalknowledge.StarMotor  Imports,Inc.v.SuperiorCourt(1979)88CA3d201,204. 8   However,adeclarationinsupportofaEvidenceCode  section782motionneedonlybemadeupon"informationand H  belief."Thereasoningisthat(1)thereisalongstanding   judicialacceptancethatmotionsinsupportof"probable X   cause"toadmitordiscoverevidencerequireonly  0  informationandbelief;and(2)thestatutecontrollingthe h  motiondoesnotdemandahigherstandardofproof.(Cityof @  SantaCruzv.MunicipalCourt(1990)49C3d74,8688, x  Jaliliev.SuperiorCourt(1988)195CA3d487,489490; P Peoplev.Memro(1985)38C3d658,676.)Theabovecited  casesinvolved"Pitchess"motionsunderEvidenceCode ` section1043(b).Eachattorneyforthedefendantsoughtan  ordertoinspectanarrestingofficer'spersonnelfilefor  p evidenceofcitizencomplaintsandexcessiveforce.All  threecasesheldthatgoodcausefordiscoveryanda 0  judicialincamerainspection(whichisnearlyidenticalto " thesection782procedureatissuehere)canbeestablished @ $ uponawrittendeclarationbasedoninformationandbelief, !& providedthattherequestedevidenceisshowntobe P#( relevantandmaterial. $( *    AsstatedinCityofSantaCruz,supra: `&!,    "Ofcourse,itistruethatanaffidavitis '8#.    normallypresumedtostatematterspersonally (#/    knowntotheaffiantandlacksevidentiary p)$0    value,inavarietyofcivilcontexts,when 4*%1    basedoninformationandbelieforhearsay. *H&2    [Citationsomitted.] + '3 Ѐ     Itisdecidedlynottrue,however,thatan 8    anaffidavituponinformationandbeliefisan L    anomalyinthelaw,bereftoflegalsignificance.     Onthecontrary,astheUnitedStatesSupreme     Courthasstated,"thevalueofavermentson H     informationandbeliefintheprocedureofthelaw  \    isrecognized."[Citationomitted.]Indeed,there      arenumerousexceptionstothegeneralrule       prohibitingaffidavitsoninformationand X      beliefeitherwherethefactstobeestablished  l     areincapableofpositiveaverment,orwhere  0     expresslyprohibitedbystatute.[Citations      omitted.] h     Thus,courtshavelongheldthataffidavitson @     informationandbeliefmaybesufficientin      avarietyofcontextswherethefactswould x     otherwisebedifficultorimpossibleto <    establish.(49C3datp.87.) P TheCityofSantaCruzcourtwentontolistthese  situations,whichinclude:disqualificationofatrial ` judge,changeofvenue,quashingservice,andissuanceof  asearchwarrant.Inthecontextofsupportingevidence  p forpetitionsforwritofhabeascorpus,ourstatehigh  courthassimilarlyheld,"whereaccesstocritical 0  informationisdeniedtooneparty,whereitis " unreasonabletoexpectapartytoobtaininformationatthe @ $ pleadingstage...thegeneralrulerequiringpleadingof !& factsshouldnotbeenforcedinadraconianfashionto P#( defeattheendsofjustice."(Peoplev._Duvall_(1995)9 $( * C4th464,485.)Intheinstantcase,atthisstage,itis `&!, impossibleforDefendanttoestablishthefactssetforth '8#. incounsel'sdeclarationinanyothermanner.**Statewhy, p)$0 e.g.,theinformationiscontainedinapolicereportor *H&2 CPSreport,theauthorsofwhichhaverefusedtosign  declarations**) 8   Nospecificstandardofproofwasrequiredbythe  draftersofthesocalled"rapeshield"lawinsection782, H  whichsimplyrequiresthatthewrittenmotioncalledforbe   supportedbyanaffidavitcontaining anofferofproof. X   Thecourtshoulddeclinetoredraftthestatutetoimpose  0  amoreburdensomerequirementof personalknowledge, h  wheretheLegislaturehasconspicuouslyfailedtodoso. @  (Id.,atp.88.)Hadthelegislature"intendedtoabrogate x  theuseofaffidavitsoninformationandbeliefandto P requireaffidavitsbasedonpersonalknowledge,itis  reasonabletoassumethatitwouldhavedoneso ` explicitly."(Id.,atp.88.)    Adjudgedagainsttheofferofproofheldsufficientto  p haverequiredthetrialcourttoholdanEvidenceCode782  hearinginPeoplev._Daggett_(1990)225CA3d751,theoffer 0  ofproofinthiscasetriggerssuchahearingaswell.In " _Daggett_,thedefendantmadeanofferofproofthatthe @ $ victimhadbeenmolestedatagefivebytwoolderchildren !& andthathehadpendingjuvenilechargesagainsthim.In P#( findingthetrialcourthaderredinrefusingtoholda $( * hearingbasedonsuchanoffer,thereviewingcourtstated: `&!,    "Here_Daggett_'sofferofproofwasthathe '8#.    learnedfromaninspectionoftheprosecutor's (#/    fileDaryltoldamentalhealthworkerand p)$0    DoctorSlaughterthathehadbeenmolested 4*%1    bytwoolderchildren,ageselevenandeight, *H&2    whenhewasfiveyearsold.Thisshouldhave + '3    beensufficientforthecourttohaveordered     ahearingtodeterminewhethertheactsof t    priormolestationweresufficientlysimilar 8    totheactsallegedhere.Thecourterredwhen L    itfailedtodoso."(Id.,atp.757.)  Inferentially,suchanofferofproofcouldonlyhavebeen H  basedontheinformationandbeliefofdefensecounselwho   couldnotpossiblyhavehadanypersonalknowledgeofwhat X   Darylhadtoldamentalworker.Thus,basedon_Daggett_and  0  CityofSantaCruz,theofferofproofhereinwhichstates h  oncounsel'sinformationandbeliefthatԀ**giveabrief @  summaryoftheofferofproof**87Ԁissufficienttowarrantan x  EvidenceCode782hearing. P   @ff,B  @!EVIDENCEOFCHARACTER ` @ UNDEREVIDENCECODESECTION1101 $      Thepriorsexualconductofthecomplainingwitness, \ whichisevidenceofaperson'scharacterortraitof 4 character,isadmissibleunderEvidenceCode1101_(c_)to l supportorattackhisorhercredibility.Theprohibition D! statedinsubsection(a)appliestocharacterevidenceonly |# whenitisofferedtoprovetheconductofacomplaining !T% witnessonaspecifiedoccasion. "'   Inourcase,thedefenseseekstoattackthealleged $d) victim'scredibility,andisthusentitledundersection % + 1101_(c_)toemployevidenceofherpriorsexualconduct,her $'t"- prioractsofdeceit,herpriorfalseallegationsandher (#/ priorlyingasevidencetoattackhercredibility.**Use 4*%1 whatisappropriate**< + '3  @ff,C    @ssEVIDENCECODESECTION1103_(c_)DOESNOTBARADMISSION 8 Ѐ@ssOFTHEALLEGEDVICTIM'SPRIORSEXUALCONDUCTBECAUSE L Ѐ@SUCHEVIDENCEWILLNOTBEOFFEREDTOPROVEHERCONSENT.      EvidenceCode1103_(c_)(1)states,asageneral H  proposition,that"opinionevidence,reputationevidence,   andevidenceofspecificinstancesofthecomplaining X   witness'ssexualconduct...isnotadmissiblebythe  0  defendantinordertoproveconsentbythecomplaining h  witness."However,EvidenceCode1103doesNOTbar @  evidenceofavictim'ssexualconduct(norcross x  examinationofherconcerningsuchconduct)whenthe P evidenceisofferedtoattackhercredibility.[Evidence  Code1103_(c_)(3)&(4);Peoplev.Chandler(1997)56CA4th ` 703,711;Peoplev.Blackburn(1976)56CA3d685,689690.)    Oncethedefendantmakesaswornofferofproof  p concerningtherelevanceofthesexualconductofthe  complainingwitnesstoattackhercredibility,the 0  protectionsofsection1103givewaytotheprocedural " safeguardsofsection782.Thisisso,eventhoughitis @ $ theunderlyingissueofcapacitytoconsentwhichisbeing !& challenged.Peoplev._Rioz_(1984)161CA3d905,916.#0XX0~s##XlXX0X#1XXXXl P#(  1XX1X#X1D#0~@ff,D $( *   Ӏ@NN EVIDENCECODESECTION352 `&!,      Generally,crossexaminationtotestthecredibility '8#. ofaprosecutionwitnessshouldbegivenwidelatitude. p)$0 (Peoplev._Belmontes_(1988)45Cal.3d744,780.) *H&2 "'[_C]ross_Ԅexaminationistheprinciplemeansbywhichthe  believabilityofawitnessandthetruthofhistestimony 8 aretested.'"(FarrellL.v.SuperiorCourt(1988)203CA3d  521,526.)"Insexcases,broadcrossexaminationofthe H  prosecutingwitnessonpriorsexualexperiences,   fabricationandsexualfantasyshouldbeallowed."(People X   v.Francis(1970)5CA3d414,417.)  0    InPeoplev._Reeder_(1978)82CA3d543,550the h  courtheldthat"incriminalcases,anyevidencethattends @  tosupportorrebutthepresumptionsofinnocenceis x  relevant",since"itisfundamentalinoursystemof P jurisprudencethatallofadefendant'spertinentevidence  shouldbeconsideredbythetrieroffact."(Id.,atp. ` 552.)Thecourtfoundthatdefendanthadtherighttoshow  hebelievedwhatothershadtoldhimaboutthecodefendant  p andtheprofferedevidencesupportedhisdefenseofsuch  intensedislikeforhiscodefendantastoprecludehim 0  fromengaginginacriminalconspiracywithhim(_Reeder_, " supra,atp.550)andstated: @ $ 8  "EvidenceCodeSection352mustbowtothedue !& processrightofadefendanttoafairtrialand "' tohisrighttopresentallrelevantevidenceof P#( significantprobativevaluetohisdefense.In $d) Chambersvs.Mississippi(1973)410U.S.284,93 $( * _S.Ct_.1038,35_L.Ed_.2d297,itwasheldthatthe % + exclusionofevidence,vitaltoadefendant's `&!, defense,constitutedadenialofafairtrialin $'t"- violationofconstitutionaldueprocess '8#. requirements."(Id.,atp.553.)(#/    @ff,E 4*%1  @  CASESADMITTINGSEXUALHISTORY  + '3   Thefollowingcasespermittedadefendanttodelve  intothepriorsexualconductoftheallegedvictim. 8   Peoplev.Hernandez(1964)61CA2d529,535involved  thecrimeofstatutoryrapeandatrialcourtwhich H  preventedthedefendantfromdevelopinganofferofproof   astoareasonablebeliefthatthe_prosecutrix_Ԁhadreached X   theageoflegalconsent.Theappellatecourtspokeabout  0  therelationshipbetweenthedefenseof"honestand h  reasonablemistakeoffact,"andPenalCodesection20, @  whichrequiresthejointoperationofactandintentbefore x  acrimecanbecommitted.Thecourtheldthattheaccused P waspermittedtopresentevidenceastowhyheheldagood  faithbeliefthatthecomplainantappearedtobeover18 ` yearsofage.Presumably,suchevidencewouldhave  includedthepriorsexualconductofthecomplainant.  p   Peoplev.Dolly(1966)239CA2d143,146,involveda  rapechargewherethecomplainantallegedlyalackedmental 0  competency.Thecourtacknowledgedthattheaccusedmay " presentevidenceofhisnoncriminalintentbasedonan @ $ honestandreasonablebeliefthatthevictimdidnotlack !& capacitytogiveconsent.Thedefendant'sevidencewould P#( presumablyhaveincludedthepriorsexualconductofthe $( * complainanthoweverthedefendantinDollydeclinedto `&!, testifyandpresentednodefensebeforethetrialcourt. '8#.   Peoplev._Varona_(1983)143CA3d566,569,involved p)$0 chargesofrapeandoralcopulation.Thetrialcourt *H&2 committedreversibleerrorbynotadmittingevidenceofthe  complainingwitness'spriorsexualconduct.There,the 8 disputedevidencewasthattheallegedvictimwason  probationforprostitutionandtypicallypliedhertradein H  theareawherethecrimesweresupposedlycommitted.Such   evidenceshouldhavebeenadmittedtoproveconsentonthe X   partofthecomplainant.  0    InPeoplev._Rioz_(1984)161CA3d905,oneofthe h  defendantstestifiedthathewastoldbythevictimthat @  thecostforthesexactwouldbeacertainsum.Heagreed x  topayheratalatertime.Attrialhewantedtoadmit P herstatementstohimabouttherequestforpayment,as  bearingonhisbeliefthatthesexactwasconsensual.The ` reviewingcourtmadeacleardistinctionbetweenthe  evidencethatthevictimwasaprostitutetoimpeachher  p credibilityandevidencethatshehadmadestatementsof  priceforcertainacts.Thefirstwasviewedas 0  impermissiblecharacterevidence,thesecondwasviewedas " permissibleimpeachmentofthecomplainingwitnessdenial @ $ ofconsent.Thecourtsaid: !& 8  Weemphasizeagainthenecessitythata P#( defendantadvancingadefenseofconsentbears $d) theburdenofaffirmativelyofferingtoprove, $( * underoath,therelevanceofthecomplaining % + witnesssexualconducttoattackher `&!, credibilityinsomewayotherthanbydeprecating $'t"- hercharacter.Itisnotenoughthatadefendant '8#. allegesthecomplainingwitnessisaprostitute, (#/ hasbeenconvictedofprostitution,orengages p)$0 inanyparticularizedaspectsofthatprofession 4*%1 unlessthecomplainingwitnesshastestifiedshe *H&2 didnotconsenttosexwiththatdefendantand + '3 thedefendanthadpresentedevidencebyhisown  testimonyorotherwisewhichdirectlychallenges t thecomplainingwitnessdenialofconsentand 8 thedefendantofferstoprove,bysworn L affidavit,thatherpriorsexualconductis  sufficienttoattackhercredibilityas  distinguishedfromhercharacter.(Id.,atp. H  918.) \     In_Daggett_,supra,asnotedabove,theappellatecourt    reversedthedefendant'sconvictionduetothetrial  l  court'sfailuretoallowhimtopresentevidencethatthe   victimhadbeenmolestedbyolderchildrenwhenhewas ,|  five.Thecourtheld:   0  0 (#(#"Achild'stestimonyinamolestationcase < involvingoralcopulationandsodomycanbegiven P anaura (# (#    ofveracitybyhisaccuratedescriptionofthe     acts.Thisisbecauseknowledgeofsuchactsmay L 0  0 (#(#beunexpectedinachildwhohadnotbeen ` subjected$ (# (#    tothem.Insuchacaseitisrelevantforthe     defendanttoshowthatthecomplainingwitness \    hadbeensubjectedtosimilaractsbyothersin  p    ordertocastdoubtupontheconclusionthatthe 4    childmusthavelearnedoftheseactsthrough     thedefendant.Thus,iftheactsinvolvedinthe l    priormolestationaresimilartotheactsofwhich 0     thedefendantstandsaccused,evidenceofthe D!    priormolestationisrelevanttothecredibility "    ofthecomplainingwitnessandshouldbe |#    admitted."(225CA3datp.757.) @ $   Finally,inChandler,supra,thereviewingcourtfound !& errorinthetrialcourt'srulingdisallowinganattackon P#( thevictim'scredibilitywiththetestimonyoftwo $( * witnesseswhotestifiedattheEvidenceCode782hearing `&!, thattheyhadpreviouslytradeddrugsforsexwithher. '8#. (56CA4thatp.711.) p)$0  @, *H&2 @%%+ II    #0XX0~E##XlXX0XPE#2XXXXl@2XX2X#X2n#0~THEDEFENSEMAYINTRODUCEALTERNATIVEEXPLANATIONSOFA 8 VICTIM'SSEXUALKNOWLEDGEWHENTHEPROSECUTIONINFERSTHE L VICTIMMUSTHAVEGAINEDTHATSEXUALKNOWLEDGEFROMBEING    Ӏ@!MOLESTEDBYDEFENDANT.     @ff,A  \   @B B DUEPROCESSREQUIRETHATEVIDENCEOF    @ DEFENDANT'SALTERNATIVEEXPLANATIONSOF X   @> > THECHILDSKNOWLEDGEOFSEXBEADMITTED  l  @$BEFORETHEJURY.   0    Inchildmolestcases,theconclusionisroutinely h  drawnthatthevictimgothisorherknowledgeofsex @  fromthedefendantwhilebeingmolested.Welearnedthe x  hardwayintheinfamous_McMartin_ԀcaseinLosAngeles P thatthisconclusionisnotalwaystrue.Childrencanbe  "taught"suchmattersbybeingrepeatedlyquestioned ` usingquestionsfullofinformationaboutsexualacts.  Childrencan"learn"suchmattersinanumberofways  p althoughthisfactisoftenoverlooked.Ifno  alternativeexplanationispermittedbythecourt,juries 0  willautomaticallypresumethatthedefendantprovided " thechildwithknowledgeofsexthroughthealleged @ $ illegalacts.   !&   Asquotedabove,inPeoplev._Daggett_,supra,the P#( appellatecourtrecognizedthispresumptionandits $( * inherentdangersandfoundthatthedefenseshouldhave `&!, beenallowedtoelicitthevictim'spriorsexualhistory '8#. torefuteit.Thefailuretoallowthedefendantto p)$0 establishthevictim'salternativesourceofknowledge *H&2 compelledreversal.(225CA3datp.758.)    **addwhicheverfollowingsectionsapplytoyour  case**  H  @ff, wB   8   ACHILDWHOWATCHESORLISTENSTO X   PORNOGRAPHICMATERIALOUTOFSHEERCURIOSITYIS  l  NOTENGAGINGIN"SEXUALCONDUCT"WITHINTHE  0  MEANINGOFPENALCODE782,ANDTHUSTHE   SOURCEOFTHECHILD'SKNOWLEDGEISNOT h  PRIVILEGED.,|       EvidenceCode782limitstheadmissibilityofa   complainingwitness'spriorsexualconduct.Itrequires < adetailedofferofproofbythedefendantasto  necessityandrelevancy.TheCoderequiressupportbya L formalaffidavit,andprovidesforanincamerahearing $ toquestionthewitnesswithregardtosuchofferof \ proofbeforethejuryispermittedtoheartheevidence. 4   DefendantcontendsthatEvidenceCode782doesnot l apply,sincethepriorsexualconductofthealleged D! victimisnotthesubjectofhisinquiry.Heonlywants |# toshowthatcomplainants'sexualknowledgecamefroma !T% sourceotherthanthecriminalactsthedefendantis "' allegedtohavecommittedwithher. $d)   Bywatchingavideo,readingabookorlisteningto % + phonemessageservices,apersonsuchasthecomplaining $'t"- witnessissimplyengagedinaneducationalprocess.The (#/ subjectmatterofthosemediaisirrelevant.Ifthe 4*%1 topichappenstobesexual,thenthatpersonissimply + '3 educatinghimorherselfaboutsex.    Learningisaneutralactwhichdoesnotbecome 8 sexualinnatureuntiloneturnstophysicalactivity  withtheintentofarousingthepassionsofselfor H  others.     Asaneutralact,complainants'sviewingofa X   pornographicvideosorseeingsexualactsarenot"sexual  0  conduct"withinthemeaningofEvidenceCode782. h  Thereforesuchevidenceisnotprotectedandshouldbe @  admittedifnototherwiseprohibitedbyobjectionsasto x  relevancy(EvidenceCode350)ortimeconsumptionand P undueprejudice(EvidenceCode352).    InRubiov.SuperiorCourtofOrangeCounty(1988) ` 202CA3d1343,1348thecourtruledthat,whereachild  hadwatchedavideotapeofherparentsmakingloveprior  p toallegedlybeingmolestedbyathirdparty,the  defendantwasentitledtoincameraviewingofthetape 0  beforeanadmissibilityrulingtodeterminewhetherhis " righttodueprocessoutweighedtheparents' @ $ constitutionalprivacyinterestsandtheirmarital !& privilege. P#(   ThedefendantinRubiowastryingtoshowthejury $( * thatayoungchild'sknowledgeofsexualactsand `&!, techniquescamefromasourceotherthanthecharged '8#. criminalacts. p)$0   RapeshieldlawssuchasCalifornia'sPenalCode *H&2 782oftenconflictwithadefendant'sDueProcessand  ConfrontationClauserights.Wherearapeshieldlaw 8 curtailsthedefendant'sefforttogeneratedoubtasto  hisparticipationintheabuseofchildren,Sixthand H  FourteenthAmendmentrightsshouldoutweighanycompeting   concerns. X    @ff,C  0  @ MOTHER'SOBSESSIVEBEHAVIOR h  Ѐ@> > AROUNDISSUEOFMOLESTATIONISADMISSIBLE ,|  @: : TOSHOWALTERNATESOURCEOFSEXUALKNOWLEDGE.  @    Whataboutthesituationwhereamotherconstantly x  ischeckingherdaughter/sonforevidenceofmolestation. P Thiscouldbeabeginningofafalseaccusationora  sourceofknowledgeforthechild.Thisissuewasruled ` uponinthecaseofPeoplev._Scholl_(1964)225CA2d558,  wherethecourtheldthatitwasimpropertonotallow  p crossexaminationonthepossibleexistenceofamorbid  fearofsexualactsinthemindofthemotherastomake 0  thechargeacreatureofthatmorbidity. "   Sincethisdoesnotentailsexualconductofthe @ $ minor,itdoesnothavetocomplywithEvidenceCode !& 782. P#( @+ III $( *  @  EVIDENCEOFPRIORFALSEALLEGATIONS `&!, @B B ISADMISSIBLETOIMPEACHCOMPLAINANT. $'t"-    Ithasbeenrepeatedlyheldthatavictim'sprior (#/ falsechargesofsexualassaultareadmissibleonthe 4*%1 issueofhis/hercredibility. + '3   SeePeoplev.Wall(1979)95CA3d978,987989  [reversibleerrortoexcludetestimonyofvictim'sex 8 boyfriendthatshehadthreatenedtomakeafalse  accusationofrapeagainsthimwherehercredibilitywas H  thesoleissueforthejurytodetermine];Peoplev.   _Randle_(1982)130CA3d286,294[errorindenialof X   motionfornewtrialbasedonnewlydiscoveredevidence  0  thatontwoprioroccasionsatsamelocationascharged h  offense,allegedvictimhadfalselyclaimedtobethe @  victimofpursesnatchandkidnap];Peoplev._Varona_ x  (1983)143CA3d566,569570[reversibleerrorinrape P andoralcopulationprosecutionwheretrialcourt  excludedevidencethatvictimwasonprobationfor ` prostitution];Peoplev.Adams(1988)198CA3d10,18  [errortoexcludeevidencethatrapevictimfalsely  p accusedothersofrape];Peoplev._Burrell_ԄHart(1987)  192CA3d593,597599[same];Peoplev.Franklin,supra, 0  25CA4thatp.335[same].@,  " @%%+IV @ $ @ THEUSEOFVICTIM'SUNCHARGEDALLEGATIONS !& @ FORTHEPURPOSEOFIMPEACHMENTISANISSUE "' @ OFWEIGHT,NOTADMISSIBILITY.  P#(   ThePeoplemayquestionwhethertheprior $( * allegationsmadebycomplainantarefalse,andwhether `&!, cantheybeintroduceduntilsoproven.InAndrewsv. '8#. CityandCountyofSanFrancisco(1988)205CA3d938,the p)$0 plaintiffsuedthecitybecausehewasbeatenupbyan *H&2 OfficerRamirez.Duringthetrialtheofficertestified  thathewasapatientmanandperformedhisdutiesina 8 calmandstraightforwardmanner.Thedefenseknewof  fourinstancesinvolvingpersonsincustodywhose H  testimonyabouttheirspecificinstancewouldreasonably   andlogicallytendtodisproveOfficerRamirez's X   characterizationofhimself.  0    Thetrialcourtexcludedtheevidence.Itwas h  concernedaboutaseriesof"minitrials"thatwouldhave @  tobeconductedinordertoestablishthateachandevery x  oneoftheincidentsweretrue.TheCourtofAppealheld P that,whileitappreciatedthetrialjudge'stime  pressureconcerns,itdidnotperceivethemas ` "...constitutingsufficientjustificationforkeepingout  allofthemisconductincidents."(Id.,atp.947.)The  p courtfurtherstated:  8  "Ineverycasewherepriorsimilarmisconduct 0  isadmitted,thedefendantmaybeexpectedto D! bringforthacontraryversionoftheevents. " However,thefactthatthejurymustresolve |# conflictingversionscannotjustifythe @ $ exclusionofallsuchevidenceonthisground !T% alone."Id.,at987.!&     TheCourtofAppealrecognizedthatwhetherthey P#( weretrueorfalse,complaintsofpolicebrutalitywerea $( * questionforthejury. 7 Similarly,inthecaseat `&!, bar,itisnotforthetrialcourttodeterminewhethera '8#. priorallegationofsexualmisconductistrueorfalse. p)$0 Thatisajuryquestion. *H&2   InPeoplev._Lankford_(1989)210CA3d227,233234  theStatewaspermittedtointroduceevidencethatthe 8 defendanthadapendingtrialforrobbery.Thisevidence  tendedinreasontoimpeachthedefendant'sstatement H  thathehadnothadany"incidents"sincehisrelease   fromparole. X     Ifthependingchargewasfalse,thenthe  0  defendant'sstatementabouthavingno"incidents"was h  true.Ifthereweretopastincidents,suchevidence @  wouldnotberelevantbecauseitcouldnotimpeachhis x  testimony.However,ifthependingchargewastrue,then P thedefendant'sclaimabouthavingno"incidents"was  false.Inthatcase,suchevidencewouldberelevant ` becauseitcoulddirectlyimpeachhistestimony.Itis  notforpurposeofshowingpropensitytocommitacrime,  p justimpeachment.    Althoughtheveracityofthependingchargewas 0  stillinlitigation,thefactthatitexistedwas " admittedintoevidencebythe_Lankford_Ԁcourt.Itwas @ $ forthejurytoresolvewhetherornotthedefendantwas !& impeachedbyit. P#(  @$IV.CONCLUSION  $( *   Basedontheabovediscussion,nosectionofthe `&!, EvidenceCodeisabartotheadmissibilityofthe '8#. complainingwitness'ssexualconductforthepurposes p)$0 requested. *H&2   [Thedefendanthastherighttoproveanalternative  sourceofknowledgeofsexualmattertorebutan 8 inferencethatthechildmusthavebeenmolested,how  elsecouldthechildhaveknownaboutthesetypesof H  matters.]     [Thedefendanthasarighttoshowthatthemother's X   fearsofmolestationareapossiblesourceofthe  0  allegationandapossiblesourceofthechild'sknowledge h  concerningmolestation.] @    [Thedefendanthastherighttoprove,byuseof x  specificinstances,atraitorcharactertraitofmaking P falseaccusationsaboutbeingsexuallyabused.]    [Theissueofwhetherthepriorallegationsaretrue ` orfalseisajuryissue.]**Useappropriateconclusion**   Dated:  /      7     p     /     Respectfullysubmitted,   G"       /      7       /     ____________________________ "     /      7       /     AttorneyforDefendant !& @  DECLARATIONINSUPPORTOFMOTION  P#(   I,_________________,doherebydeclarethat: $( *   1. IamtheattorneyofrecordfortheDefendant `&!, intheabovecaptionedcase. '8#.   2.  p)$0   Ideclareunderpenaltyofperjurythattheaboveis *H&2 trueandcorrect,exceptastothosemattersbasedupon  informationandbelief,andastothosematters,I 8 believethemtobetrue.ExecutedatWalnutCreek,  Californiaon H      /      7 __________________________ X       /      7   #0XX0~n##XlXX0Xo#.XlXXXl  0  r'#XlXX.Xl%#