The People, Plaintiff and Respondent v. Juan Jose Villatoro, Def — Corrigan, J., Concurring in Part and Dissenting…

Summary

Justice Corrigan would reject the majority’s interpretation of Evidence Code section 1108 as permitting a jury to draw a propensity inference from charged sex offenses. She reasons that section 1108 addresses only the admissibility of uncharged sex-crime evidence and does not authorize propensity reasoning from charged offenses, but concludes the instructional error was harmless because the evidence against defendant was strong. Justice Liu, concurring in part and dissenting in part, agrees that the instruction was erroneous and harmless, but separately emphasizes that the record did not show the trial court conducted the required section 352 analysis.