People v. Loy

Supreme Court of California · 2011 · Evidence

EvidenceEvidence Code section 1108Evidence Code section 352prior sexual offensespropensity evidencespontaneous statementhearsayConfrontation Clause

Facts

The prosecution's theory was that defendant entered his 12-year-old niece Monique's bedroom at night, sexually assaulted and killed her, and dumped her body in a vacant lot. At trial, the court admitted evidence that defendant had committed two prior sexual assaults involving rape, sodomy, oral copulation, and choking. The court also admitted testimony from Monique's friend that Monique had said she feared defendant because he touched her chest and grabbed her crotch, and it admitted expert entomology testimony estimating when the body had been left in the lot. Defendant challenged those evidentiary rulings and related jury instructions on appeal.

Issue

Did the trial court err by admitting defendant's prior sexual assaults under Evidence Code section 1108, by admitting the victim's out-of-court statement to her friend, by permitting expert testimony that relied on an unestablished foundational fact, and by instructing the jury with the pre-1999 version of CALJIC No. 2.50.01? If any rulings were erroneous, did they require reversal?

Rule

In a criminal case in which the defendant is accused of a sexual offense, Evidence Code section 1108 allows admission of other sexual offenses unless inadmissible under Evidence Code section 352. Under section 352, the court considers factors including nature, relevance, remoteness, certainty of commission, similarity, risk of confusion or undue prejudice, burden on the defense, and less prejudicial alternatives, with a presumption favoring admission under section 1108. A casual statement to a friend is not testimonial hearsay for Confrontation Clause purposes. Expert opinion may rest on reliable hearsay reasonably relied on in the field, but the expert may not substitute for proof of simple foundational facts that must be established by other evidence. Jury instructions must be assessed as a whole; the pre-1999 CALJIC No. 2.50.01 does not violate due process when the jury is otherwise fully instructed on proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the instruction does not reasonably permit conviction based solely on prior sexual offenses.

🔒

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, Devin Cole is tried for killing a 13-year-old neighbor during an alleged lewd act. The prosecution offers proof that Devin was convicted in 1994 and 2002 of separate sexual assaults involving forced oral copulation and choking; he spent most of the years between those offenses and the charged crime in prison, and each prior victim would testify briefly.

Should the trial judge most likely admit the prior sexual-assault evidence?

Explanation. Section 1108 permits admission of other sexual offenses when the defendant is accused of a sexual offense, subject to section 352. The majority emphasized factors favoring admission here: certainty of commission through prior convictions, little risk of a mini-trial, brief presentation, and reduced remoteness because prison time limited opportunities to reoffend. Exact identity of facts is not required, and the presumption is in favor of admission.