The so-called propensity evidence is typically inadmissible because of its potential for prejudice. Discuss the place of such evidence in trials involving sex offenders, analyzing the case of Charles Falsetta.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Answers may vary.Evidence of other crimes or wrongdoing (so-called propensity evidence) is also typically inadmissible because of its potential for prejudice. Thus, prosecutors may not suggest that because a defendant had the propensity to act in a criminal manner, he or she is guilty of the crime charged. However, sex crimes are treated differently. In 1994, Congress passed a law making evidence of other sex offenses admissible to show a defendant's propensity to commit the charged sex offense. (The promulgation of this law reflects a belief that some people have a propensity toward aggressive and sexual impulses.) The California legislature enacted a similar law, and the California Supreme Court upheld the law in the case of Charles Falsetta and his propensity to commit sex crimes.When Charles Falsetta was tried for rape and kidnapping in Alameda County Court, the prosecutor introduced evidence of two prior uncharged sexual assaults allegedly committed by Falsetta. In the first, the defendant was alleged to have begun jogging beside a woman, asked her where she was going, and then tackled and raped her. In the second incident, the defendant allegedly blocked the path of a woman as she walked to work and later jumped out from behind some bushes, grabbed her, threw her into the bushes, and sexually assaulted her. These incidents bore a striking resemblance to the Alameda County case in which the defendant was alleged to have stopped a 16-year-old girl as she was walking to her house from a convenience store. After initially refusing a ride, the girl eventually accepted and was driven to a darkened parking lot and raped. The defendant was convicted and appealed his conviction, contending that the admission of evidence of other uncharged rapes violated his rights.In an appeal to the California Supreme Court, Richard Rochman, the deputy attorney general who argued the case on behalf of the State of California, stated that because victims of sex offenses often hesitate to speak out and because the alleged crimes occur in private, prosecutors are often faced with a "he said, she said" credibility problem. Allowing prosecutors to present propensity evidence in these cases would give jurors the full picture of the defendant's past sexual misconduct, reasoned Rochman. The California Supreme Court agreed (People v. Falsetta, 1999).