🦅
Federal Evidence • Witness Impeachment
EVID#099
Legal Definition
Proposition 8 states that relevant evidence shall not be excluded in criminal cases, thus any evidence of convictions (felony and misdemeanor) or prior bad acts involving moral turpitude (subject to a CEC 352 balancing) is admissible to impeach.
Plain English Explanation
Proposition 8 is weird. It was originally passed back in 1982 as "The Victims' Bill of Rights" and its purpose was to allow evidence to be used against a defendant even if it was gathered in a way that violates the rights of the accused. This means that Prop 8 makes it so relevant evidence can't be excluded in any criminal proceeding... however, nothing in Proposition 8 affects any existing statutory rule of evidence relating to privilege, hearsay, CEC 352, or character evidence.
In other words, in reality and practice, Proposition 8 only affects a small number of evidence rules in criminal cases involving illegally obtained evidence used to impeach a defendant.
Aside from that, it should not change your analysis of character evidence, hearsay, privilege, or CEC 352. Definitely keep it in mind and a part of your mental checklist for California evidence questions, but do not automatically waste time discussing it with each item unless the item is one that Proposition 8 could apply (some type of evidence impeaching a witness).
In other words, in reality and practice, Proposition 8 only affects a small number of evidence rules in criminal cases involving illegally obtained evidence used to impeach a defendant.
Aside from that, it should not change your analysis of character evidence, hearsay, privilege, or CEC 352. Definitely keep it in mind and a part of your mental checklist for California evidence questions, but do not automatically waste time discussing it with each item unless the item is one that Proposition 8 could apply (some type of evidence impeaching a witness).
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob is on trial for embezzlement in California. During the trial, the prosecution seeks to introduce evidence of Bob's prior misdemeanor conviction for petty theft to question his credibility as a witness. Bob's defense objects, arguing that the prior conviction could unfairly prejudice the jury against Bob, given that the crime was minor and occurred over a decade ago. Result: Under Proposition 8, evidence of Bob's prior misdemeanor conviction is admissible because it involves moral turpitude, which relates to his honesty and thus is relevant to his credibility in the current embezzlement case. However, the judge must also consider California Evidence Code Section 352, which allows the court to exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of undue prejudice. After weighing the factors, the judge decides that the conviction's relevance to Bob's honesty outweighs the potential prejudice, especially since the nature of the current charge directly relates to dishonest behavior. Thus, the evidence is admitted for the purpose of impeaching Bob's credibility.
Related Concepts
How may a witness be <impeached>?
In California, how may a witness be impeached?
When attempting to impeach a witness, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to evidence of character for untruthfulness?
When attempting to impeach a witness, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to felony convictions?
When attempting to impeach a witness, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to misdemeanor convictions?
When attempting to impeach a witness, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to prior inconsistent statements?
When attempting to impeach a witness, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to specific instances of conduct and prior bad acts?
When attempting to impeach a witness in California, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to felony convictions?
When attempting to impeach a witness in California, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to misdemeanor convictions?
When attempting to impeach a witness in California, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to prior inconsistent statements?
When attempting to impeach a witness in California, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to specific instances of conduct and prior bad acts?
