Evidence Code sections 1101, subdivision (a) and 1102, subdivision (b), evidence of specific acts of a criminal defendant’s misconduct is inadmissible to prove the defendant’s character or a trait of his character. the Law Revision Commission’s “As comments to section 1102 make clear, evidence of acts of the accused are, as a general rule, inadmissible to prove his disposition to commit such acts (see also Evid. Code, § 1101); this general rule is applicable though the defendant has opened the ‘even question by introducing evidence of his good character.’” (People (1975) 13 v. Wagner Cal.3d 612, 619; (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 426, 432-433.) People v. Felix The precluding the admission into evidence of specific acts of misconduct under Evidence Code sections 1101 and 1102 of course, be distinguished from the “must, cross-examination of a [or character] When a defense witness, other reputation witness. than the defendant himself, has testified to the reputation of the accused, the prosecution may inquire of the witness whether he has heard of acts or conduct by the defendant inconsistent with the witness’ testimony. [Citations.]” (People 13 v. Wagner, supra, Cal.3d at p. 619.) Here, no evidence of defendant’s prior conviction was admitted as character evidence”—that is, to prove defendant had a character trait or “rebuttal propensity to molest children. Instead, the prosecutor was properly allowed to use the prior conviction to impeach the testimony of C.H. and Mrs. A. that defendant was a person of good character, unlikely to molest children. (People (1985) 175 v. Marsh Cal.App.3d 987, 992-993.)
Evidence Code sections 1101, subdivision (a) and 1102, subdivision (b), evidence of specific acts of a criminal defendant’s misconduct is inadmissible to prove the defendant’s character or a trait of his character. “As the Law Revision Commission’s comments to section 1102 make clear, evidence of acts of the accused are, as a general rule, inadmissible to prove his disposition to commit such acts (see also Evid. Code, § 1101); this general rule is applicable ‘even though the defendant has opened the question by introducing evidence of his good character.’” (People v. Wagner (1975) 13 Cal.3d 612, 619; People v. Felix (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 426, 432-433.) The precluding the admission into evidence of specific acts of misconduct under Evidence Code sections 1101 and 1102 “must, of course, be distinguished from the cross-examination of a reputation [or character] witness. When a defense witness, other than the defendant himself, has testified to the reputation of the accused, the prosecution may inquire of the witness whether he has heard of acts or conduct by the defendant inconsistent with the witness’ testimony. [Citations.]” (People v. Wagner, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 619.) Here, no evidence of defendant’s prior conviction was admitted as “rebuttal character evidence”—that is, to prove defendant had a character trait or propensity to molest children. Instead, the prosecutor was properly allowed to use the prior conviction to impeach the testimony of C.H. and Mrs. A. that defendant was a person of good character, unlikely to molest children. (People v. Marsh (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 987, 992-993.)
E064206.DOCX