189 Cal. App. 4th 1085
Cal. Ct. App.2010Background
- Miramontes was convicted on multiple counts involving three minor victims in 2007 and additional uncharged offenses from 2003 in Mexico.
- The prosecution sought to introduce uncharged acts against B. and A. in Mexico under Evidence Code sections 1101 and 1108 to prove propensity and intent.
- The trial court admitted B. and A.'s testimony with CALCRIM No. 1191 limiting its use to propensity/intent toward the charged offenses.
- Miramontes contested the admissibility under 1108 and 352, and raised federal due process concerns about propensity evidence and CALCRIM No. 1191.
- The jury returned verdicts including sodomy, oral copulation/sexual penetration, lewd acts, and use of harmful matter; he also possessed child pornography.
- On appeal, Miramontes argues the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the uncharged-offense evidence and raises due process challenges, which the appellate court rejects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility under 1108 and 352 | 1108 permits other-sex-offense evidence for propensity/intent; 352 balancing is satisfied. | Evidence too remote/dissimilar; unduly prejudicial and cumulative; 352 not satisfied; 1108 misapplied with foreign offenses. | Admission did not constitute abuse; evidence properly admitted under 1108 with 352 balancing. |
| Federal due process challenge to 1108 | Propensity evidence under 1108 violates due process. | Falsetta allows 1108; no due process violation. | Falsetta controls; no due process violation found. |
| CALCRIM No. 1191 as to uncharged offenses | Instruction improperly framed uncharged offenses to inflame the jury. | Instruction appropriately limited to permissible use and not sole basis for guilt. | Instruction properly given; no due process violation or reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Falsetta, 21 Cal.4th 903 (Cal. 1999) (constitutional validity of 1108; rules for assessing probative value vs. prejudice)
- People v. Reliford, 29 Cal.4th 1007 (Cal. 2003) (upholding CALCRIM 1191; limitations on uncharged-offense instructions)
- People v. Kipp, 18 Cal.4th 349 (Cal. 1998) (probative similarity necessary for uncharged offenses evidence)
- People v. Myers, 5 Cal.4th 1193 (Cal. 1993) (use of entire record for enhancement and related evidentiary purposes)
- In re Rodden, 186 Cal.App.4th 24 (Cal. App. 2010) (out-of-state conduct and elements-based admissibility considerations)
- People v. Harris, 60 Cal.App.4th 727 (Cal. App. 1998) (comparative analysis of prejudice and probative value in 352 balancing)