WPCV 9l}B+~Q! ؍@+V{4<<I.VM-Y9 ?y]`wob!Fp|l@ZH|@:}"a=j\v!aF8Ϡq Ngug&va-Œ.`oN ÁcpB@ vm6 y\q,=S~ 0dV!ȷj_!rB:љNDMOh L 0_[ŝVy?~zN]hbZio&¯ "»7r{#VA#XTUkX_k2w^,D]5s #݄C~|piuk6X5: DE-f'+#a ׊?ÞV27WiiQ˟-?ZujFPI(!\# ުK 6k˙T7Y#U N % 0 U6} N  0gEw@^ S4_s mUFU. B B*,HP LaserJet 5,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(Z)$USUS.,  <6X9`(Courier New  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 !E"E#P$E%E&Q'E(T)g*T. ,z.:i+003|x* U<4 9Z+.Courier New Regular<6X9`+Courier d&0 d d )!USUS.,    _ XӐXXX)8Xdd8)CLANCYLITIGATIONGROUP   PatrickE.Clancy,SBN60805 t Dr.DemosthenesLorandos,SBN177644 8 1600S.MainSt.,Suite185 L WalnutCreek,CA94596  Tel:(925)2564600  eFax:(888)8025089#XXXXӐ# H  XӐXXX&b%XXӐAttorneysforDefendant    @T T SUPERIORCOURTOFCALIFORNIA,COUNTYOF  0     `     h THEPEOPLEOFTHESTATEOF0 h 0h(#h(#)0(#(#CaseNo.,| (#(# CALIFORNIA,0 0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#)@ (#(#    `     h   )0  ADMISSIBILITYOFCHARACTER (#(#    `  Plaintiff,0  )0(#(#EVIDENCEFORTRUTHANDVERACITYx (#(#    `     h   )0  OFCOMPLAININGWITNESS<(#(#   vs.0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#)0(#(#P(#(#    `     h   )0  TrialDate:0 (#(# (# (#    `     h   )0  Time:0(#(#0 (#(# (# (#    `     h   )0  Dept.0(#(#0 (#(#L (# (#    `  Defendant.0  )`(#(# ______________________________0  )$(#(#  @~~)I.  p @XX$INTRODUCTION      ItwasrevealedbytheDistrictAttorneyatthePreliminary 0  Examinationthatthecomplainingwitnessinthismatter,ROBERTG.was " beinghousedataJuvenileDetentionFacilityinOregonforforgeryof @ $ acheckinOregonandattemptedrobbery,purportedlyamisdemeanor !& underOregonlaw.Thecomplainingwitnessaffirmedtheissueupon P#( questioningbytheCourt.(SeePreliminaryTranscript,pg.28,ln.26 $( * Єpg.30,ln.23.) `&!,   AlsoatthePreliminaryExaminationthecomplainingwitness '8#. ROBERTG.testifiedthathetookthedefendantscarwithoutthe p)$0 defendantspermissionandthatthepolicewerecalledbythe *H&2 defendantandthecomplainingwitnessquestionedaboutthematterby  thepolice. 8 (PreliminaryTranscript,pg.34,ln.23pg.35,ln.12.)    Itistheintentionofthedefendanttointroduceevidence H  relatingtothesebadactsbythecomplainingwitnessforthepurpose   ofallowingthejurytodeterminethecomplainingwitnessscharacter X   forhonestyandveracity.  0   @GG)II. h  @e e PROPOSITION8ANDITSEFFECTONTHEADMISSIBILITY @  @22OFCHARACTEREVIDENCE.Ԉ x   0  EvidenceCodesection780(e)providesthatacourtmayconsider P indeterminingawitness'scredibilityhis/her"characterfor  honestyorveracityortheiropposites." `(#(#   Twosetsofstatutesgoverntheadmissibilityofcharacter  evidence:EvidenceCodesections786790precludetheintroductionof  p certaintypesofevidencetoattackorsupportawitness'struthor  veracitywhileEvidenceCodesections11011103precludethe 0  introductionofvarioustypesofevidencetoproveconduct.( People " vs.Harris (1989)47Cal.3d1047,1081.) @ $   InJuneof1982theelectoratepassedProposition8,the Truth !& inEvidencePropositionwhichaddedsection28(d)totheCalifornia P#( Constitution.Thissectionprovidesinpertinentpart: $( * 8  Exceptasprovidedbystatutehereafterenactedbyatwo `&!, thirdsvoteofthemembershipineachhouseofthe $'t"- Legislature,relevantevidenceshallnotbeexcludedinany '8#. criminalproceeding...Nothinginthissectionshallaffect (#/ anyexistingstatutoryruleofevidencerelatingto p)$0 privilegeorhearsay,orEvidenceCodeSections352,782or 4*%1 1103.*H&2      + '3    Harris holdsthatProposition8effectivelyrepealedEvidence  CodeԀsections786790incriminalcases.(47Cal.3datp.1081.) 8 (Alsosee Peoplevs.Taylor (1986)180_Cal.App_.3d622,632  [Proposition8hadrepealedEvidenceCodesection790]; Peoplevs. H  Adams (1988)198_Cal.App_.3d10[EvidenceCodesection787isnolonger   validincriminalcasesinthepostProposition8world].)(If X   applicabletoyourcase,addthefollowing.Theadmissibilityofthe  0  goodcharacterofawitnessnolongerdependsupontheprior h  introductionofevidenceofbadcharacter.( Taylor,supra .)) @   @(III.  x    @  LEVIDENCECODESECTIONS1101AND1103 P @22SURVIVEPROPOSITION8.       BytheexpresstermsofProposition8quotedabove,"section ` 28(d)supersedesallCaliforniarestrictionsontheadmissionof  relevantevidenceexceptthosepreservedorpermittedbytheexpress  p wordsofsection28(d)itself."( Peoplevs.Wheeler (1992)4Cal.4th  284291.)ThosesectionswhichProposition8specifiesasremaining 0  inforceinacriminalproceedingincludeEvidenceCodesections352, " 782,1103andanystatutesubsequentlyenactedbyatwothirdsvoteof @ $ thelegislature.   !&   Thus,EvidenceCodesection1103,whichdealswiththeallowance P#( andexclusionofcertaincharacterevidenceofacrimevictim,is $( * expresslypreservedasanexceptiontoProposition8.EvidenceCode `&!, section1101alsocontinuesasaviableexceptiontoProposition8 '8#. becauseitwasreenactedbytherequisitemajorityoftheLegislature p)$0 in1986.( Peoplevs._Ewoldt_ (1994)7Cal.4th380,390393.) *H&2  *@(*IV.   @T T  THELAWAPPLICABLEINCRIMINALCASESTO 8 @C C CHARACTEREVIDENCEISFOUNDIN L @0 0 EVIDENCECODESECTION1101ET.SEQ.  @~~)A. H  @kk'THELAW    8  1101.EvidenceofcharactertoproveconductX     8  (a)ExceptasprovidedinthissectionandinSections1102,  l  1103,1108,and1109,evidenceofapersonscharacteror  0  traitofhisorhercharacter(whetherintheformofan   opinion,evidenceofreputation,orevidenceofspecific h  instancesofhisorherconduct)isinadmissiblewhen ,|  offeredtoprovehisorherconductonaspecifiedoccasion.@    8  (b)Nothinginthissectionprohibitstheadmissionof   evidencethatapersoncommittedacrime,civilwrong,or x  otheractwhenrelevanttoprovesomefact(suchasmotive, < opportunity,intent,preparation,plan,knowledge,identity, P absenceofmistakeoraccident,orwhetheradefendantina  prosecutionforanunlawfulsexualactorattemptedunlawful  sexualactdidnotreasonablyandingoodfaithbelievethat L thevictimconsented)otherthanhisorherdispositionto ` commitsuchanact.$   8  _(c_)Nothinginthissectionaffectstheadmissibilityof  evidenceofferedtosupportorattackthecredibilityofa \ witness. p   8  1103(a)Inacriminalaction,evidenceofthecharacter     oratraitofcharacter(intheformofopinion,evidence l   ofreputation,orevidenceofspecificinstancesof 0    conduct)ofthevictimofthecrimeforwhichthe D!   defendantisbeingprosecutedisnotmadeinadmissible "   bySection1101iftheevidenceis:(1)Offeredbythe |#   defendanttoproveconductofthevictiminconformity @ $   withthecharacterortraitofcharacter.(2)Offered !T%   bytheprosecutiontorebutevidenceadducedbythe !&   defendantunderparagraph(1)." "'  @~~)B. $d) @%DISCUSSION % +    Characterisnotadmissibleintheformofopinion,reputationor $'t"- specificacts,andisnotadmissiblegenerallytoproveordisprovea (#/ witness'sconductonaspecificoccasion.( EvidenceCodesection 4*%1 1101 )Containedwithinthatsectionarespecificandlimited + '3 exceptionstothisbasicrule.Onesuchexceptionis EvidenceCode  section1103 ,whichallowsadefendantinacriminalactiontooffer 8 evidenceintheformofopinion,reputationorspecificactsof  conductofthevictimtoproveconformitywiththecharactertrait. H  Itfurtherallowstheprosecutiontoofferrebuttalevidenceasto   thatcharactertrait.Ifadefendantofferssuchevidence,the X   prosecutoristhenauthorizedtoofferrebuttalevidencerespecting  0  thatcharactertrait.( Peoplevs._Walkey_ (1986)177_Cal.App_.3d268.) h  @VV WhatisaCharacterTrait?  @    Apersonscharacterorcharactertraitisanemotional,mental x  orpersonalityfactconstitutingadispositionorpropensitytoengage P inacertaintypeofconduct.Jefferson,_Benchbook_3rdEditionVol.2  Section33.1.Anexamplewouldbeaperson'scharactertraitfor ` truthorveracity.  0   @g g (#(# Howmayacharactertraitbeshown?   p   Section1103delineatesthemethodsforadefendanttoshowa  charactertrait.Thefirstisbyopinionevidence,thesecondisby 0  evidenceofthevictim'sreputation,thethirdisbyspecific " instancesofconduct.( Peoplevs.Franklin(1994)25_Cal.App_.4th328, @ $ 355 [victim'spriorfalseaccusationofmolestadmissibleperEvidence !& Codesection1103(a)(1),butharmlesserror,alsosee Franklinvs. P#( Henry (1997)122F.3d1270 [errorinexcludingvictim'spriorfalse $( * accusationofmolestinpreviouslycited Franklin caserequired `&!, reversal]; Peoplevs._Burrell_ԄHart (1987)192_Cal.App_.3d593 [prior '8#. falseclaimofrapeadmissibleasaspecificinstanceofconduct p)$0 tendingtodisprovetruthfulnessofcomplainant'stestimony].) *H&2 Witnessesmaytestifyabouttheiropinionofapersonstruthfulness  orlackthereof,orthereputationthepersonhasinthecommunityfor 8 truthfulness.( Peoplevs._McAlpin_ (1991)53Cal.3d1289,1304; People  vs.White (1971)18_Cal.App_.3d44,48.) H  @ Whomayintroduceevidenceofavictim'scharactertrait?      TheDefendantmayintroduceevidenceofavictim'scharacter X   trait.Theprosecutionmayonlyofferevidenceintheformof  0  opinion,reputation,orspecificactstorebuttheevidenceadducedby h  theDefendant. @   @*V P @ DEFENDANTTOINTRODUCESPECIFICACTS    Thecomplainingwitness,byhisownpreviousadmissionatthe ` preliminaryexamination,hasindicatedheengagedinforgeryand  misdemeanorrobbery.Hehasalsoadmittedthathetookthedefendants  p carwithoutthedefendantspermission.    Forgeryandrobberyareclearlytwocrimesofmoralturpitudeand 0  apriorfelonyconvictioninvolvingacrimeofmoralturpitudemaybe " usedtoimpeachawitnessinacriminalproceeding,subjecttoa @ $  EvidenceCodesection352 balancingtest. Peoplev.Castro (1985)38 !& Cal.3d301,306211_Cal.Rptr_.719,696P.2d111. P#(   In Peoplev._Parrish_ (1985)170_Cal.App_.3d336,349,theFifth $( * DistrictCourtofAppealsheldthatforgeryisacrimeofmoral `&!, turpitude: '8#. 0  Clearly,forgeryinvolveselementsthatgotohonestyand p)$0 truthfulness.Inourview,allpriorswhichnecessarilyinvolve 4*%1 dishonestyunderthepre-Castrostandardsipsofactoinvolve *H&2 moralturpitudeunderCastro.(Peoplev.Castro,supra.,38 + '3 Cal.3datpp.315-316.)WeconstrueCastrobynecessary  implicationtosohold.  t(#(#   InPeoplev._Rodriquez_,(1985)177_Cal.App_.3d174,177178,the  FifthDistrictCourtofAppealsheldthatrobberywasacrimeofmoral H  turpitude:   0   (#(# 0  "Moralturpitude"meansageneral"readinesstodoevil."(Id.,  l  atp.314.)Thedeterminationofwhetheragivenfelonyinvolves  0  "moralturpitude"isnotamatterofextrinsicproof.Rather,"a   witness'priorconvictionshouldonlybeadmissiblefor h  impeachmentiftheleastadjudicatedelementsoftheconviction ,|  necessarilyinvolvemoralturpitude."(Id.,atp.317.)@ (#(# Ѐ0   (#(# 0  Onceitisdeterminedthepriorfelonyinvolvesmoralturpitude, x  thetrialcourtmustaffirmativelyshowontherecordthatitdid < infactweighprejudiceagainstprobativevalue.(Peoplev. P Green(1980)27Cal.3d1,25[164_Cal.Rptr_.1,609P.2d468].)If  thetrialcourtfailstoexerciseitsdiscretion,erroroccurs.  Appellatecourtswillthenreverseonlyiftherecorddiscloses L thatitisreasonablyprobablethataresultmorefavorableto ` appellantwouldhaveoccurredabsenttheerror.(Peoplev. $ Castro,supra.,38Cal.3datp.319,citingCal.Const.,art.  VI,13;Peoplev.Watson,supra.,46Cal.2datp.836.)\(#(# 0  Thethresholdquestioniswhetherthepriorfeloniesinthiscase 4 necessarilyinvolvemoralturpitude.Sincerobberyandburglary  eachnecessarilyinvolveaspecificintentiontocommitatheft, l orinthecaseofburglary,atheftorafelonywithina 0  protectedstructure,eachinvolveselementsofdishonestyanda D! readinesstodoevil.Severalpost-Castroopinionshavesoheld. " (Peoplev.Boyd(1985)167_Cal.App_.3d36,44[212_Cal.Rptr_.873] |# [burglary];Peoplev.Hunt(1985)169_Cal.App_.3d668,675[215 @ $ _Cal.Rptr_.429][burglary];Peoplev.Brown(1985)169_Cal.App_.3d !T% 800,805[215_Cal.Rptr_.494][robbery];Peoplev.Stewart(1985) !& 171_Cal.App_.3d59,66[215_Cal.Rptr_.716][robbery].)"'(#(#   Misdemeanor #XӐX%&b##XXXXӐs#XXXXԀPeoplev.Wheeler (1992)4Cal.4th284,,841 $d) P.2d938,14_Cal.Rptr_.2d418 , atpg.295Wethereforeconclude % + thatifpastcriminalconductamountingtoamisdemeanorhassome $'t"- logicalbearingupontheveracityofawitnessinacriminal (#/ proceeding,thatconductisadmissible,subjecttotrialcourt 4*%1 discretion,as"relevant"evidenceundersection28(d).&X %XX#& % %&XL#&b% %& + '3   #XӐX%&b O##XXXXӐNO#XXXXThevotershaveexpresslyremovedmoststatutory  restrictionsontheadmissionofrelevantcredibilityevidencein 8 criminalcases,includingtherulethatfelonyconvictionsare  theonlyformofconductevidenceadmissibleforimpeachment. H  Hence,theyhavedecreedattheleastthatinproper cases,non   felonyconductinvolvingmoralturpitudeshouldbeadmissibleto X   impeachacriminalwitness.&X %XX#& % %&XO#&b% %&  ! $( * !  0    Hearsaypg.300#XӐX%&bQ##XXXXӐAR#XXXXFN14.Ourholdingisanarrowone,confined h  tothespecificissuewhetherundercurrentlawamisdemeanor @  convictionisadmissibleasdirectevidenceofcriminalconduct. x  Nothinginthehearsayruleprecludesproofofimpeaching P misdemeanormisconductbyother,moredirectmeans,includinga  witness'sadmissionondirectorcrossexaminationthatheorshe ` committedsuchconduct.&X %XX#& % %&XS#&b% %&"  "  #  #Severalpost-Castrocaseshavealsoheldthatthefelonyof  p automobiletheftnecessarilyinvolvesmoralturpitude.[FN9]Since  attemptedautomobiletheftrequiresaspecificintenttostealanda 0  directbutineffectualactdonetowarditscommission(664;_Witkin_, " Cal.Crimes(1963)93,94,pp.90-91),itfollowsthatthe"least @ $ adjudicatedelements"ofthecrimeofattemptedautomobiletheftalso !& necessarilyinvolvesmoralturpitude. P#( $$Juvenile $( * %%'&0  &'(@%(%% % P %CONCLUSION  `&!,   Basedontheforegoing,Defendantrequests(insertwhatruling '8#. youwantfromthetrialcourt,whichwillbefactspecifictoyour p)$0 case.) *H&2   -YDated:0 0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#Respectfullysubmitted,(#(#    `     h      `     h   _____________________________ H     `     h   AttorneyforDefendant#& %%&bZU##XX %&U#