People v. Falsetta

Supreme Court of California · 1999 · Evidence

21 Cal. 4th 903 (1999)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidencePropensity evidenceSex offensesDue processLimiting instructionsEvidence Code section 1108Evidence Code section 352Evidence Code section 1101

Facts

At defendant's trial for a sexual assault on a 16-year-old victim, the prosecution introduced evidence under Evidence Code section 1108 that defendant had committed two prior rapes in 1985 and 1987, both resulting in guilty pleas. The prior assaults were similar to the charged attack in that defendant approached lone women, used force, struck them, and in one prior incident, as in the charged offense, pushed his penis toward the victim's mouth and hit her. Defendant objected that section 1108 unconstitutionally allowed propensity evidence and also requested a special limiting instruction governing the jury's use of the prior-sex-offense evidence. The trial court admitted the evidence and refused the proposed instruction.

Issue

Does Evidence Code section 1108 violate due process by permitting admission, in a sex offense case, of a defendant's other sexual offenses to show propensity? If not, did the trial court reversibly err by refusing defendant's requested limiting instruction concerning that evidence?

Rule

Evidence Code section 1108 does not violate due process because, although it creates an exception to the traditional ban on propensity evidence in sex offense cases, it remains subject to Evidence Code section 352, which requires trial courts to exclude evidence whose prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its probative value. In exercising section 352 discretion, courts should consider factors including the uncharged offense's nature, relevance, remoteness, certainty, similarity, likely prejudicial impact, risk of confusing or distracting the jury, burden on the defendant, and less prejudicial alternatives.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Sacramento, Noah Pritchard is tried for sexual battery. The prosecution seeks to introduce certified records showing that six years earlier he pleaded guilty to a different sexual assault in Fresno, and the trial judge finds the prior offense similar and easy to prove without extended testimony.

Noah argues that admitting the prior sexual assault to show his disposition to commit sex crimes necessarily violates due process because propensity evidence has long been disfavored. What is the best response?

Explanation. The majority held that admission of other sexual offenses in sex-offense cases does not violate due process simply because it allows a propensity inference. The key constitutional safeguard is the trial court's section 352 balancing discretion to exclude evidence whose prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its probative value. The historical rule against propensity evidence is longstanding, but not an absolute constitutional bar.