rejecting the contention the jury must be instmcted to distrust in-custody informant testimony
How later courts described this case
- rejecting the contention the jury must be instmcted to distrust in-custody informant testimony
- in "identity" cases, the "other acts" and the crime charged must be related by "common marks which, considered singly or in combination, support the strong inference that the current crime bears [the defendant's] signature"
- “Confabulation is a process by which the witness fills gaps in memory with false and imaginary information, often implanted by others, and comes to believe in the truth of his reconstruction”
- “the corpus delicti of a crime must be proved independent of the accused’s extrajudicial admissions ... A slight or prima facie showing, permitting the reasonable inference that a crime was committed, is sufficient”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Superseded by statute, as recognized in People v. Falsetta
36 Cal.3d 604, 626 , abrogated by statute as stated in People v. Falsetta (1999) 21 Cal.4th 903, 911
Disapproved on other grounds by People v. Falsetta, 89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 847 (1999)
36 Cal.3d 604, 623 , disapproved on other grounds by People v. Falsetta (1999) 21 Cal.4th 903, 911
Distinguished
Distinguished by People v. Hovey, 44 Cal. 3d 543 (1988)
Defendant correctly observes that Alcala, supra, is factually distinguishable in certain respects.
The opinion
MOSK, J.
I dissent.
I cannot conclude, with the assurance of my colleagues, that the admission of evidence of prior offenses committed by defendant was erroneous, or that *637 its admission requires reversal under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ]. There were sufficient similarities in the prior offenses, all against female children, to permit their introduction on the issue of identity.
That the prior offenses against little girls did not result in a killing is not sufficient justification to find dissimilarity and to conclude that the trial court improperly exercised its discretion in admitting the evidence. (People v. McCarty (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d 322, 326 [ 330 P.2d 484 ].)
I would affirm the conviction on the ground that there has been no miscarriage of justice. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13.)
Respondent’s petition for a rehearing was denied October 4, 1984. Mosk, J., and Lucas, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.