People v. Villatoro
54 Cal. 4th 1152
| Cal. | 2012Background
- California sex-offense case addressing admissibility and use of propensity evidence under Evidence Code 1108 and pattern instruction CALCRIM No. 1191, as modified to include charged offenses as propensity indicators.
- Defendant Villatoro was convicted of multiple rapes, kidnappings, and robberies against five women (2005–2008).
- Trial court instructed the jury with a modified CALCRIM No. 1191 allowing propensity inferences from one charged offense to other charged offenses.
- Defense challenged the modification under Quintanilla and related statutes, arguing it improperly treated charged offenses as propensity evidence.
- California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal, holding that 1108 applies to charged offenses and upholds the modified instruction after weighing under 352; dissents dispute this breadth.
- Record included five victim accounts, DNA corroboration, and various weapon-based coercive acts; trial court implicitly weighed 352 considerations; majority finds error harmless in this case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 1108 extends to charged offenses | Villatoro argues 1108 only covers uncharged offenses. | Villatoro contends 1108 cannot support propensity inferences from charged offenses. | Yes; 1108 extends to charged offenses. |
| Whether modified CALCRIM 1191 properly guides burden of proof | Instruction adequately links charged offenses to propensity without diluting proof. | Modification risks lowering the standard for propensity inferences. | Yes; instruction sufficiently preserves beyond-reasonable-doubt standard. |
| Whether court conducted a section 352 analysis for 1108/1191 | Implicit weighing evident from court’s reliance on Wilson. | No clear explicit 352 weighing; potential error. | Implicit weighing adequate; any error harmless. |
| Whether allowing charged-offense propensity inferences risks bootstrapping verdicts | Propensity instruction legitimate under 1108 to evaluate credibility in sex cases. | Bootstrapping verdicts from charged offenses undermines separate-count integrity. | Not improperly bootstrapping under present facts; harmless here. |
| Whether future application of propensity instruction should be decided | Maj. leaves unresolved for future cases. | Narrow scope should limit to uncharged offenses. | Court did not decide future use; current holding stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Quintanilla, 132 Cal.App.4th 572 (Cal.App.4th 2005) (addressed 1109/2.50.02; held uncharged offenses only; relevance to charged offenses contested)
- Falsetta v. State, 21 Cal.4th 903 (Cal. 1999) (principles on propensity evidence and 1108; dangers and safeguards)
- Reliford v. People, 29 Cal.4th 1007 (Cal. 2003) (recognition of uncharged offenses under 1108; admissibility framework)
- People v. Cromp, 153 Cal.App.4th 476 (Cal.App.4th 2007) (no material difference between CALJIC 2.50.01 and CALCRIM 1191)
- People v. Ochoa, 19 Cal.4th 353 (Cal. 1998) (evidence cross-admissibility for related offenses)
- Ewoldt v. California, 7 Cal.4th 380 (Cal. 1994) (sex-offense context and admissibility standards)
- Padilla v. California, 11 Cal.4th 891 (Cal. 1995) (implicit weighing and evidentiary rulings standard)
- People v. Wilson, 166 Cal.App.4th 1034 (Cal.App.4th 2008) (instruction framework for 1108/352 weighing in Wilson)