People v. Starkey CA4/1
Opinion
Opinion
Aaron, J.
I.
INTRODUCTION
" 'The rule excluding evidence of criminal propensity is nearly three centuries old
in the common law.' " (People v. Falsetta (1999) 21 Cal.4th 903, 913 (Falsetta).) This is
because, as the United States Supreme Court has long recognized, propensity evidence is
thought to cause jurors to "prejudge one with a bad general record and deny him a fair
opportunity to defend against a particular charge." (Michelson v. U.S. (1948) 335 U.S.
469, 475-476 (Michelson).) In modern times, our Legislature has crafted limited
statutory exceptions to this ancient common law rule with respect to certain specific
crimes, including domestic violence. (See Evid. Code, § 1109, subd. (a).)1 However,
our Legislature has also adopted "safeguard[s]" (Falsetta, supra, at p. 917) to ensure that
these statutory exceptions are not used inappropriately so as to deprive a defendant of a
fair trial. Among these safeguards is section 1109, subdivision (e), which establishes a
presumption that evidence of the defendant's act of domestic violence committed more
than 10 years prior to the charged offense is inadmissible. (People v. Johnson (2010) 185