People v. Ewoldt

Summary

The Supreme Court of California held that Evidence Code section 1101 remained effective after the adoption of Proposition 8 because the Legislature reenacted it by a more-than-two-thirds vote in 1986. The court further held that evidence of the defendant’s prior uncharged lewd acts was admissible to show a common design or plan and was not required to be excluded under Evidence Code section 352. The court also held that the complaining witness’s uncorroborated testimony regarding an uncharged act was not barred by People v. Stanley.

Holdings

1. Even if article I, section 28(d), of the California Constitution abrogated Evidence Code section 1101, the Legislature reenacted section 1101 in 1986 by amending it with more than a two-thirds vote of each house.
2. Evidence of uncharged misconduct is admissible under Evidence Code section 1101 when the uncharged misconduct and charged offense share sufficient common features to support an inference that they are manifestations of a common design or plan, even without a single continuing conception or plot.
3. People v. Tassell and People v. Ogunmola are overruled to the extent they require the charged and uncharged acts to be part of a single, continuing conception or plot before the uncharged acts may establish a common design or plan.
4. To establish a common design or plan, the uncharged and charged acts must share common features indicating a plan rather than merely a series of similar spontaneous acts; the plan need not be unusual or distinctive.
5. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the uncharged-misconduct evidence because its substantial probative value in showing a common design or plan was not substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury.
6. The uncharged misconduct was inadmissible to prove intent as to the lewd-act charges because, assuming Ewoldt committed the alleged conduct, his intent could not reasonably be disputed; however, the evidence was properly admitted for the distinct purpose of establishing a common design or plan.
7. People v. Stanley does not impose an absolute bar on uncorroborated testimony by the complaining witness concerning uncharged misconduct; admissibility depends on the Evidence Code section 352 balancing process.

Questions Presented

1. Whether California Evidence Code section 1101 remained operative after adoption of article I, section 28(d), of the California Constitution.
2. Whether evidence of Ewoldt's prior uncharged misconduct was admissible under Evidence Code section 1101 to establish a common design or plan.
3. Whether the evidence should nevertheless have been excluded under Evidence Code section 352 because its prejudicial effect substantially outweighed its probative value.
4. Whether Evidence Code section 1101 permitted admission of the uncharged misconduct to prove intent when intent was not genuinely disputed.
5. Whether People v. Stanley required exclusion of Jennifer's uncorroborated testimony concerning Ewoldt's uncharged misconduct.

Disposition

reversed