Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by People v. Ewoldt, 7 Cal. 4th 380 (1994)
39 Cal.3d 120 , overruled on other grounds in People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380
The opinion
LUCAS, J.
I concur in the judgment, but solely under the compulsion of People v. Tassell (1984) 36 Cal.3d 77 [ 201 Cal.Rptr. 567 , 679 P.2d 1 ], a case which I believe was incorrectly decided and should be reconsidered and overruled.
As the dissent by Justice Richardson in Tassell explained, the fact that the defendant had committed 1 several strikingly similar sex offenses in the recent past is highly probative of defendant’s intent, plan or scheme to commit such offenses, including the charged offense. The jury is entitled to know these probative, relevant facts.
Although the majority herein does not mention it, Proposition 8 seemingly has eliminated Tassell’s absolute barrier to admissibility of relevant prior criminal offenses. (See Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (d); cf. People v. Castro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 301, 309-313 [ 211 Cal.Rptr. 719 , 696 P.2d 111 ].) The present offenses, however, occurred prior to the adoption of Proposition 8 and, accordingly, Tassell unfortunately controls disposition of the present case.
Like the majority, I do not reach the further question of the effect of defendant’s acquittal of the prior offenses on the admissibility of the underlying evidence.