🦅
Federal Evidence • Character Evidence
EVID#072
Legal Definition
Evidence of a prior sexual assault or child molestation is admissible when offered in a criminal or civil case arising out of sexual assault or child molestation.
Plain English Explanation
As you've seen in other cards, the law generally doesn't like trying to decide whether a defendant currently committed an act they are accused of based on their history of similar instances. But sexual assault and child molestation are a huge risk to society, so courts will allow evidence against the defendant that shows they have a history of such acts even if the defendant didn't "open the door" first by using character evidence against the victim.
As an aside, I know I write a lot of jokes in here, but there's nothing funny about sexual assault. If you or someone you love is a survivor of sexual assault, there are support resources you should consider such as RAINN.org. You are loved.
As an aside, I know I write a lot of jokes in here, but there's nothing funny about sexual assault. If you or someone you love is a survivor of sexual assault, there are support resources you should consider such as RAINN.org. You are loved.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob is on trial for sexually assaulting Sam. Previously, Bob was convicted of a similar crime. Result: The court allows evidence of Bob's past conviction to be presented, as it suggests a pattern in Bob's behavior related to sexual assault.
Hypo 2: In a civil lawsuit, Sam sues Bob for damages after Bob molested him. It is revealed that Bob has a history of child molestation. Result: The court considers Bob's past molestation history as relevant evidence to establish a pattern, impacting the decision in the civil case.
Hypo 3: Bob is being tried for robbery. The prosecution tries to introduce evidence of Bob's previous sexual assault conviction. Result: This evidence is not admitted as it is unrelated to the current charge of robbery.
Hypo 2: In a civil lawsuit, Sam sues Bob for damages after Bob molested him. It is revealed that Bob has a history of child molestation. Result: The court considers Bob's past molestation history as relevant evidence to establish a pattern, impacting the decision in the civil case.
Hypo 3: Bob is being tried for robbery. The prosecution tries to introduce evidence of Bob's previous sexual assault conviction. Result: This evidence is not admitted as it is unrelated to the current charge of robbery.
Visual Aids
Related Concepts
How do California's rules differ from the Federal rules when it comes to introducing character evidence in a case involving sexual assault or child molestation?
How is the process of offering character evidence generally handled in California?
How is the process of offering character evidence generally handled under the Federal rules?
If the defendant offers evidence of a victim's bad character, what can the prosecution offer to rebut?
In California, if the defendant offers evidence of a victim's violent character, what can the prosecution offer to rebut?
In California, when can prior acts of domestic violence or elder abuse be admissible?
In cases involving sexual assault, when may a defendant introduce specific act evidence?
What are habit and custom evidence?
What is character evidence?
When assessing character evidence, what are non-character purposes?
When is character evidence admissible in civil cases?
When is character evidence admissible in criminal cases?
When is character evidence admissible in homicide cases involving self defense? What kinds are admissible?
