McFarland

People v. McFarland

Good Law
78 Cal. App. 4th 489·92 Cal. Rptr. 2d 884
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 23, 2000B128007California2,580 words

Opinion

Opinion

Here we conclude that Evidence Code section 1108 [1] does not allow a psychiatrist called as an expert witness to render an opinion about the accused's sexual proclivities during the prosecution's case-in-chief. Section 1108 permits the prosecution to prove a defendant's sexual propensity through evidence of specific instances of conduct. It does not alter section 1102's rule that opinion evidence about a defendant's character is inadmissible unless the defendant first places his character in issue.

A jury convicted appellant Dennis McFarland of annoying or molesting a child, under Penal Code section 647.6. Before his trial began, appellant admitted two prior felony convictions for lewd conduct with a child under 14 years of age. (Pen.Code, § 288, subd. (a).) These prior convictions elevated the current offense from a misdemeanor to a felony, and rendered appellant eligible for sentencing under the Three Strikes law. (Pen.Code, §§ 647.6, subd. (c)(2), 1170.12.) Appellant was sentenced to prison for a term of 25 years to life. We reverse.

Amparo G. has three children: eleven-year-old Robert, six-year-old Breana, and four-year-old Isabella. She was employed at a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.