Schultz v. Tilton
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 21744
9th Cir.2011Background
- Schultz was convicted in 2004 of lewd acts on three minors under 14 under Cal. Penal Code § 288(a).
- Evidence included uncharged sexual misconduct with two other minors to show propensity under Cal. Evid. Code § 1108 and CALJIC No. 2.50.01 (8th ed. 2002).
- The CALJIC instruction told jurors they may infer disposition from prior offenses and that such inferences do not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by themselves.
- The jury was instructed that conviction required proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the charged crimes, after considering the other-acts evidence.
- Schultz challenged the 2002 CALJIC No. 2.50.01 as lowering the burden of proof and violating due process.
- California Court of Appeal rejected Schultz’s claim, applying Reliford and upholding the 2002 instruction; Schultz filed habeas petition in federal court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CALJIC No. 2.50.01 (8th ed. 2002) violated due process by allowing conviction based on preponderance of the evidence. | Schultz argued the instruction effectively lowers the burden of proof. | State courts deemed the instruction clarifies but does not permit conviction on lesser standard. | No due process violation; instruction aligns with Reliford and clarifies burden. |
| Whether Gibson v. Ortiz governs this case given later revisions to CALJIC 2.50.01. | Gibson suggested the 1996/early forms could be unconstitutional when read with later instructions. | Reliford and post-2002 revisions render Gibson inapplicable here. | Gibson distinguished; 2002 revision not constitutionally infirm under Reliford. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gibson v. Ortiz, 387 F.3d 812 (9th Cir. 2004) (older CALJIC 2.50.01 tied to preponderance standard; later revisions addressed concerns)
- People v. Reliford, 130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 254 (Cal. 2003) (1999 CALJIC 2.50.01 upheld; later revisions clarified use of other-acts evidence)
- People v. Falsetta, 986 P.2d 182 (Cal. 1999) (upheld 1108 evidence and proper burden considerations under due process)
- Mendez v. Knowles, 556 F.3d 757 (9th Cir. 2009) (distinguishes Gibson on burden and sequence of instructions)
- Cool v. United States, 409 U.S. 100 (U.S. Supreme Court 1972) (burden of proof and due process concerns with lowering standard)