People?v.?McAlpin?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?1289?,?283?Cal.Rptr.?382;?812?P.2d?563
[No.?S010577.?Jul?18,?1991.]THE?PEOPLE,?Plaintiff?and?Respondent,?v.?BRUCE?McALPIN,?Defendant?and?Appellant.
(Superior?Court?of?Santa?Clara?County,?No.?116671,?John?A.?Flaherty,?Judge.)
(Opinion?by?Mosk,?J.,?with?Lucas,?C.?J.,?Kennard,?Arabian?[53?Cal.3d?1290]?and?Baxter,?JJ.,?concurring.?Separate?concurring?and?dissenting?opinion?by?Broussard,?J.?with?Panelli,?J.,?concurring.)
COUNSEL
Campbell?&?Demetrick,?James?Farragher?Campbell?and?Linda?Lee?DeMetrick?for?Defendant?and?Appellant.
John?K.?Van?de?Kamp?and?Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorneys?General,?Steve?White?and?Richard?B.?Iglehart,?Chief?Assistant?Attorneys?General,?John?H.?Sugiyama,?Assistant?Attorney?General,?Stan?M.?Helfman,?Rene?A.?Chacon,?Laurence?K.?Sullivan?and?Catherine?A.?Rivlin,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent.
Kent?S.?Scheidegger?and?Charles?L.?Hobson?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Plaintiff?and?Respondent.
OPINION
MOSK,?J.
Defendant?appeals?from?a?judgment?convicting?him?of?nonviolent?lewd?conduct?with?a?child?under?the?age?of?14.?(Pen.?Code,???288,?subd.?(a).)?He?complains?of?a?number?of?evidentiary?rulings?by?the?trial?court.?As?will?appear,?we?conclude?that?the?principal?rulings?were?correct,?and?the?incorrect?rulings?were?not?prejudicial?on?the?entire?record?of?this?case.?We?therefore?affirm?the?judgment.
Defendant?met?Anita?M.?at?a?church?dance?in?April?1985?and?began?dating?her.?Anita,?who?was?divorced,?had?three?children:?Stephanie?(then?age?8),?Valerie?(then?age?7),?and?Isaac?(then?age?1).?Sunday,?June?9,?1985,?was?Stephanie’s?ninth?birthday.?About?noon?on?that?day,?defendant,?Anita,?and?her?children?went?shopping?for?birthday?gifts?for?Stephanie.?Next?they?[53?Cal.3d?1295]?drove?to?defendant’s?house,?and?after?looking?at?Stephanie’s?gifts?they?all?lay?down?together?on?a?large?bed?in?defendant’s?bedroom?to?watch?television.?It?was?hot,?and?the?children?were?lightly?clothed;?the?girls?wore?short?”jumper”?suits.?Anita?soon?left?with?Isaac?to?sit?on?the?floor,?and?eventually?took?him?outside?to?play.?Defendant?remained?lying?on?the?bed?between?the?two?girls,?facing?Stephanie.
Stephanie?testified?that?defendant?began?touching?her?while?her?mother?was?tending?to?Isaac,?and?”When?my?mom?would?turn?around?to?look?at?the?T.V.?or?so?or?somewhere?close?where?he?was,?he’d?stop.”?The?touching?continued?after?her?mother?took?Isaac?outside,?and?Stephanie?described?the?events?in?detail.?On?direct?examination?she?testified?that?”At?first?[it]?was?around?my?pants?and?then?around?the?elastic?part?of?my?underwear.”?At?different?times?defendant?used?either?his?fingers?or?his?whole?hand.?Stephanie?continued,?”Then?it?was?inside?my?underwear,”?against?her?skin.?Finally,?Stephanie?testified?that?defendant?put?his?finger?”inside?…?my?vagina”?and?also?touched?”my?chest.”?Stephanie?testified?she?knew?it?was?wrong?for?defendant?to?touch?her?in?this?way,?but?she?did?not?move?away?at?first?because?she?was?scared.?After?a?few?minutes,?however,?she?told?defendant?she?had?to?go?to?the?bathroom;?instead,?she?went?directly?to?her?mother?and?told?her?what?defendant?had?done.
On?cross-examination?Stephanie?not?only?adhered?to?her?description?of?defendant’s?conduct,?but?gave?additional?details?in?response?to?defense?counsel’s?questions.?For?example,?she?explained?precisely?how?defendant?touched?her?when?his?hand?reached?the?cuff?of?her?suit,?illustrating?her?testimony?both?by?gesture?and?by?reference?to?a?photograph?of?her?taken?in?that?suit?on?that?day.fn.?1?She?also?reiterated?that?she?did?not?call?out?during?the?touching,?but?that?as?defendant?moved?his?hand?closer?to?her?vagina?she?[53?Cal.3d?1296]?became?”scareder?and?scareder.”?On?redirect?examination?she?testified?that?she?did?not?know?what?to?do?when?defendant?began?touching?her.?And?when?the?prosecutor?asked?her?if?she?had?any?other?feeling?about?the?experience,?she?replied,?”Sad.”
Anita?corroborated?much?of?her?daughter’s?testimony.?She?stated?that?Stephanie?emerged?from?defendant’s?bedroom?about?10?minutes?after?she?had?left?with?Isaac.?According?to?Anita,?Stephanie?”came?out?of?the?house?a?little?in?a?hurry?and?looked?at?me?with?an?expression?that?I’ve?never?seen?on?her?face?before.?…?She?looked?sick.?And?she?had?tears?in?her?eyes.”?Anita?asked?what?was?the?matter;?at?first?Stephanie?was?”pretty?choked?up?with?crying”?and?said?that?defendant?was?”bothering”?her.?When?pressed?to?say?how?he?was?”bothering”?her,?Stephanie?”stuttered?around?with?it?and?finally?said,?’Well,?he?put?his?hand?in?my?private.’?”?Anita?immediately?went?inside?and?confronted?defendant,?demanding?an?explanation.?Defendant,?however,?”denied?having?any?idea?what?was?wrong,”?and?went?back?to?whatever?he?was?doing?at?the?time.?Anita?testified,?”I?was?lost?for?words”?and?”I?went?into?shock.?I?didn’t?know?what?to?do.”?She?told?defendant?that?maybe?she?should?”just?go?home,”?but?he?suggested?instead?that?they?all?get?something?to?eat.fn.?2?They?went?to?a?restaurant?for?dinner;?at?the?restaurant?Stephanie?was?quiet?and?withdrawn,?and?in?the?restroom?she?again?talked?to?her?mother?about?the?event.
Anita?acknowledged?that?she?dated?defendant?once?more?a?week?or?two?later,?and?that?she?did?not?report?the?matter?to?the?police.?She?did,?however,?discuss?it?with?her?mother,?who?knew?defendant.?Shortly?thereafter?Anita?also?saw?defendant?with?a?mutual?friend?on?a?rafting?trip?sponsored?by?her?church?group,?and?at?that?time?she?told?the?friend?about?the?incident.?On?redirect?examination?Anita?was?asked?why?she?went?out?with?defendant?once?more?after?Stephanie?told?her?what?had?happened,?and?she?replied,?”It’s?in?my?personality?or?character,?if?you?will,?to?sit?on?the?fence?until?you?have?enough?information?to?actually?point?your?finger?and?accuse?somebody?of?something?that?is?that?extreme?and?emotional?and?traumatic.”?She?also?stressed?that?she?had?”los[t]?a?baby?and?a?husband,”?the?latter?through?divorce,?in?the?year?preceding?these?events.
In?June?1986?Stephanie?reported?the?incident?to?authorities?at?her?school,?and?the?police?were?notified.
Defendant?took?the?stand?and?denied?the?charge.?His?version?of?the?events?leading?up?to?the?molestation?was?the?same?as?that?of?Stephanie?and?[53?Cal.3d?1297]?her?mother,?except?that?he?insisted?it?all?occurred?one?day?earlier.?With?regard?to?the?touching,?he?told?a?very?different?story.?First?he?acknowledged?that?while?they?were?lying?together?on?his?bed?he?put?his?right?arm?on?Stephanie’s?thigh.?Then?he?claimed?that?after?Anita?left?the?room?with?Isaac,?Stephanie?”started?moving?her?left?arm?over?next?to?my?genitals.”?Defendant?testified?that?he?”grabbed?her?arm?and?said,?’don’t?touch?me?there’?”;?that?Stephanie?left?the?room?and?Anita?returned?soon?thereafter;?that?he?and?Anita?discussed?the?incident?in?private;?that?he?told?Anita,?”Your?daughter?touched?me?where?she?shouldn’t?have?been”;?that?Anita?replied,?”yeah,?I?can?believe?that.?She’s?pretty?aggressive?at?times”;?and?that?he?and?Anita?then?calmly?told?Stephanie?not?to?let?it?happen?again.
Defendant?was?allowed?to?introduce?evidence?of?his?standing?in?the?community.?Counsel?began?the?case?for?the?defense?by?eliciting?without?objection?a?full?statement?of?defendant’s?education?and?employment?history:?thus?defendant?testified?he?had?served?four?years?in?the?Navy;?had?attended?two?colleges;?had?been?trained?as?an?electronics?technician;?had?worked?first?for?the?Atari?Company;?had?then?taken?a?job?with?IBM;?had?worked?for?six?years?for?IBM,?where?he?became?a?”senior?manufacturing?method?specialist”;?and?at?the?time?of?trial?was?a?”technical?analyst”?in?”product?development”?at?IBM.
Defendant?was?also?permitted?to?call?two?character?witnesses?on?his?behalf.?The?first,?Vicki?Daybell,?was?a?clerk?in?the?Alameda?Superior?Court;?she?was?divorced?and?had?a?small?daughter.?She?had?dated?defendant?for?four?or?five?months,?and?had?stayed?in?contact?with?him?thereafter.?Ms.?Daybell?testified?that?in?the?course?of?dating?defendant?she?came?to?know?his?circle?of?friends,?and?from?that?experience?she?learned?he?has?an?excellent?reputation?for?truth?and?veracity?in?the?community.?As?Ms.?Daybell?testified,?”They?all?regard?him?very?highly?…?[f]or?being?very?honest.”
The?second?witness,?Robert?Tarkanian,?had?known?defendant?for?some?11?years.?Their?friendship?began?when?they?were?in?college?together,?and?continued?when?they?both?went?to?work?for?IBM.?Tarkanian?thus?came?to?know?defendant’s?circle?of?friends?on?the?job,?and?testified?that?”He’s?well?respected?within?the?corporation,”?i.e.,?among?his?fellow?workers.?The?witness?further?testified?that?on?a?trip?to?Texas?with?defendant?they?stayed?in?defendant’s?family?home,?and?”I?was?very?proud?to?meet?his?parents.”?When?asked?about?defendant’s?reputation?among?his?fellow?workers,?Tarkanian?reiterated?that?”He’s?very?well?respected.”?And?the?witness?agreed?in?particular?that?defendant?has?”a?high?reputation?among?his?fellow?workers?for?truth?and?veracity.”
In?rebuttal?the?prosecution?called?Debbie?Hill.?Like?Anita,?Ms.?Hill?was?a?single?parent?whom?defendant?had?dated.?She?was?also?the?woman?whom?[53?Cal.3d?1298]?Anita?testified?she?spoke?with?on?a?rafting?trip?shortly?after?these?events.?Ms.?Hill?testified?that?when?Anita?spoke?with?her?on?the?topic?she?was?”extremely?upset”?and?told?her?what?had?happened?between?defendant?and?Stephanie.?According?to?Ms.?Hill,?Anita?explained?that?”I?wanted?to?let?you?know?because?you?have?children?and?you?do?see?him.”?On?cross-examination?Ms.?Hill?testified?she?was?shocked?and?thereafter?”monitored”?defendant’s?interaction?with?her?children?because?she?was?afraid.
The?jury?returned?a?guilty?verdict?after?45?minutes’?deliberation.?The?Court?of?Appeal?affirmed?the?ensuing?judgment?of?conviction,?and?we?granted?review.
I
Defendant?first?contends?the?trial?court?abused?its?discretion?in?allowing?opinion?testimony?by?an?expert?witness.?(Evid.?Code,???801.)?The?prosecutor?proposed?to?call?Police?Officer?Jeffrey?Miller?as?an?expert?on?child?molestation?investigations.?Defense?counsel?examined?Officer?Miller?at?length?on?voir?dire.?It?appeared?from?such?examination?that?the?witness?had?received?from?350?to?400?hours?of?specialized?training?in?such?topics?as?juvenile?and?adolescent?psychology,?physical,?sexual?or?emotional?abuse?of?children,?intervention?in?family?crisis?situations,?investigation?of?child?abuse?charges,?behavioral?responses?of?child?abuse?victims,?and?the?dynamics?of?child?abuse?offenders.?Officer?Miller?received?his?training?not?only?from?law?enforcement?personnel?but?also?from?physicians,?social?workers,?probation?officers,?school?administrators,?attorneys?and?judges.?The?witness?put?his?training?to?use?on?a?daily?basis?in?his?work?as?the?juvenile?investigator?for?his?local?police?department,?and?in?that?capacity?he?had?investigated?over?100?cases?of?child?abuse?or?molestation?during?the?preceding?4?years.?He?had?also?taught?and?spoken?extensively?on?the?topic,?and?had?testified?several?times?as?an?expert?witness.
The?prosecutor?declared?that?she?intended?to?ask?Officer?Miller,?on?the?basis?of?his?training?and?experience,?(1)?whether?a?parent?might?not?report?a?known?child?molestation,?and?if?so,?why;?and?(2)?whether?there?is?a?profile?of?a?”typical”?child?molester.?Defense?counsel?voiced?a?rambling?and?confused?objection.fn.?3?The?trial?court?interpreted?the?objection?to?state?three?[53?Cal.3d?1299]?separate?grounds,?and?overruled?it?on?each?ground:?”On?this?matter?the?Court’s?going?to?rule?this?witness?be?allowed?to?testify?as?an?expert.?I?am?satisfied,?number?one,?he?does?possess?the?qualifications?from?the?extensive?voir?dire.?Number?two,?I?think?it?is?relevant?and,?number?three,?to?the?extent?that?the?objection?is?under?[Evidence?Code?section]?352?I?think?the?probative?value?of?this?testimony?in?light?of?the?facts?of?this?case?outweighs?its?prejudicial?nature.”
Officer?Miller?then?gave?his?testimony?on?the?two?questions?propounded?by?the?prosecutor.?First,?he?listed?a?number?of?reasons?why?a?parent?might?not?report?a?known?child?molestation,?including?the?fear?of?breaking?up?the?marriage?or?harming?relations?with?other?family?members,?a?sense?of?shame?or?failure?as?a?parent,?a?psychological?refusal?to?accept?the?fact?of?the?molestation,?or?a?reluctance?to?damage?the?reputation?of?the?alleged?offender?when?the?latter?is?someone?of?good?standing?in?the?community?(e.g.,?a?schoolteacher?or?a?businessman).?In?conclusion,?Officer?Miller?testified?that?it?would?not?be?unusual?for?a?parent?to?refrain?from?reporting?a?child?molestation?until?actually?confronted?with?the?fact?by?a?law?enforcement?agency.
On?the?second?question,?Officer?Miller?testified?there?is?no?profile?of?a?”typical”?child?molester;?rather,?such?an?individual?can?be?of?any?social?or?financial?status,?any?race,?any?age,?any?occupation,?any?geographical?origin,?and?any?religious?belief?or?no?religious?belief?at?all.?Finally,?Officer?Miller?testified?that?such?offenders?can?also?be?persons?of?good?or?even?impeccable?reputations?in?the?community.
Opinion?testimony?by?an?expert?witness?is?admissible?if?it?is,?inter?alia,?”Related?to?a?subject?that?is?sufficiently?beyond?common?experience?that?the?opinion?of?an?expert?would?assist?the?trier?of?fact”?(Evid.?Code,???801,?subd.?(a)).?The?Court?of?Appeal?was?of?the?view?that?neither?branch?of?Officer?Miller’s?testimony?assisted?the?jury,?and?hence?that?neither?should?have?been?admitted.?Defendant?agrees,?and?adopts?that?conclusion.
We?disagree.?The?governing?rules?are?well?settled.?[1]?First,?the?decision?of?a?trial?court?to?admit?expert?testimony?”will?not?be?disturbed?on?appeal?unless?a?manifest?abuse?of?discretion?is?shown.”?(People?v.?Kelly?(1976)?17?Cal.3d?24,?39?[130?Cal.Rptr.?144,?549?P.2d?1240],?and?cases?cited.)?[2]?Second,?”the?admissibility?of?expert?opinion?is?a?question?of?degree.?The?jury?need?not?be?wholly?ignorant?of?the?subject?matter?of?the?opinion?in?order?to?justify?its?admission;?if?that?were?the?test,?little?expert?[53?Cal.3d?1300]?opinion?testimony?would?ever?be?heard.?Instead,?the?statute?declares?that?even?if?the?jury?has?some?knowledge?of?the?matter,?expert?opinion?may?be?admitted?whenever?it?would?’assist’?the?jury.?It?will?be?excluded?only?when?it?would?add?nothing?at?all?to?the?jury’s?common?fund?of?information,?i.e.,?when?’the?subject?of?inquiry?is?one?of?such?common?knowledge?that?men?of?ordinary?education?could?reach?a?conclusion?as?intelligently?as?the?witness.’?”?(People?v.?McDonald?(1984)?37?Cal.3d?351,?367?[208?Cal.Rptr.?236,?690?P.2d?709,?46?A.L.R.4th?1011]).?As?will?appear,?on?this?record?the?trial?court?could?well?determine?that?both?aspects?of?Officer?Miller’s?testimony?would?assist?the?jury?in?at?least?some?degree.
A
An?even?more?direct?analogy?may?be?drawn?to?expert?testimony?on?common?stress?reactions?of?children?who?have?been?sexually?molested?(“child?sexual?abuse?accommodation?syndrome”),?which?also?may?include?the?child’s?failure?to?report,?or?delay?in?reporting,?the?abuse.?In?a?series?of?decisions?the?Courts?of?Appeal?have?extended?to?this?context?both?the?rule?and?the?exception?of?People?v.?Bledsoe,?supra,?36?Cal.3d?236:?i.e.,?expert?testimony?on?the?common?reactions?of?child?molestation?victims?is?not?admissible?to?prove?that?the?complaining?witness?has?in?fact?been?sexually?abused;?it?is?admissible?to?rehabilitate?such?witness’s?credibility?when?the?defendant?suggests?that?the?child’s?conduct?after?the?incident-e.g.,?a?delay?in?reporting-is?inconsistent?with?his?or?her?testimony?claiming?molestation.?(People?v.?Bowker?(1988)?203?Cal.App.3d?385,?390-394?[249?Cal.Rptr.?886];?People?v.?Gray?(1986)?187?Cal.App.3d?213,?217-220?[231?Cal.Rptr.?658];?People?v.?Roscoe?(1985)?168?Cal.App.3d?1093,?1097-1100?[215?[53?Cal.3d?1301]?Cal.Rptr.?45].)fn.?4?”Such?expert?testimony?is?needed?to?disabuse?jurors?of?commonly?held?misconceptions?about?child?sexual?abuse,?and?to?explain?the?emotional?antecedents?of?abused?children’s?seemingly?self-impeaching?behavior.?[?]?The?great?majority?of?courts?approve?such?expert?rebuttal?testimony.”?(Myers?et?al.,?Expert?Testimony?in?Child?Sexual?Abuse?Litigation?(1989)?68?Neb.?L.?Rev.?1,?89,?fn.?omitted?(hereafter?Myers).)
In?the?case?at?bar?the?challenged?expert?testimony?dealt?with?the?failure?not?of?the?child?victim,?but?of?the?child’s?parent,?to?report?the?molestation.?Yet?the?foregoing?rules?appear?equally?applicable?in?this?context.?The?prosecution?did?not?seek?to?introduce?Officer?Miller’s?evidence?for?the?purpose?of?proving?that?Stephanie?was?in?fact?molested,?but?to?rehabilitate?the?corroborating?testimony?of?Anita,?her?mother.?On?direct?examination?Anita?had?corroborated?Stephanie’s?claim?of?sexual?abuse?by?testifying?to?the?effect?that?when?Stephanie?emerged?from?defendant’s?bedroom?and?said?he?had?molested?her,?Anita?had?believed?her:?for?example,?Anita?testified?that?when?she?subsequently?broke?off?her?relationship?with?defendant?it?was?”Because?I?knew?what?Stephanie?had?told?me?was?true.”?On?cross-examination,?defendant?sought?to?impeach?Anita’s?credibility?by?strongly?implying?that?her?behavior?after?the?alleged?incident?was?inconsistent?with?that?of?a?mother?who?believed?her?daughter?had?been?molested.?Thus?when?Anita?admitted?she?had?sexual?intercourse?with?defendant?a?week?later,?defense?counsel?twice?asked?rhetorically,?”Is?that?how?you?believe?Stephanie?”?And?counsel?asked?the?same?question?when?Anita?conceded?she?did?not?report?the?molestation?to?the?police?even?though?she?knew?it?was?a?criminal?act.fn.?5?[53?Cal.3d?1302]
Most?jurors,?fortunately,?have?been?spared?the?experience?of?being?the?parent?of?a?sexually?molested?child.?Lacking?that?experience,?jurors?can?rely?only?on?their?intuition?or?on?relevant?evidence?introduced?at?trial.?It?is?reasonable?to?conclude?that?on?the?basis?of?their?intuition?alone?many?jurors?would?tend?to?believe?that?a?parent?of?a?molested?child,?naturally?concerned?for?the?welfare?of?the?child?and?of?other?children,?would?promptly?report?the?crime?to?the?authorities,?just?as?a?parent?would?be?likely?to?do?if?the?child?complained?of?someone?who?had?beaten?him?or?stolen?his?pocket?money.?Yet?here?the?prosecution?had?evidence?to?the?contrary-the?expert?opinion?of?Officer?Miller?that?in?fact?it?is?not?at?all?unusual?for?a?parent?to?refrain?from?reporting?a?known?child?molestation,?for?a?number?of?reasons.?Such?evidence?would?therefore?”assist?the?trier?of?fact”?(Evid.?Code,???801,?subd.?(a))?by?giving?the?jurors?information?they?needed?to?objectively?evaluate?Anita’s?credibility.fn.?6?And?the?evidence?was?clearly?relevant?(id.,???210)?because?it?tended?to?rehabilitate?the?testimony?of?Anita?as?a?corroborating?witness.fn.?7?It?follows?that?the?trial?court?did?not?abuse?its?discretion?in?admitting?the?challenged?testimony.
B
This?stereotype,?however,?is?false.?The?same?studies?report?that?in?most?cases?the?child?molester?is?not?in?fact?a?stranger?to?his?victim,?is?not?an?old?man,?is?not?an?alcoholic,?is?not?mentally?retarded,?and?is?not?homosexual.fn.?9?A?recent?major?study?of?paraphiliacs-the?class?of?sexual?deviants?that?includes?child?molesters-found?that?their?ages?ranged?from?13?to?76,?with?a?mean?age?of?31.5?years;?many?were?well?educated;?almost?65?percent?were?employed;?they?”came?from?a?broad?spectrum?of?socioeconomic?levels,”?with?almost?one-quarter?earning?over?$25,000?per?year;?their?religious?affiliations?were?various;?and?in?sum,?they?were?”a?very?heterogeneous?group.”?(Myers,?supra,?68?Neb.?L.?Rev.?1,?130.)?”Thus,?it?is?appropriate?to?conclude?that?under?the?current?state?of?scientific?knowledge,?there?is?no?profile?of?a?’typical’?child?molester.”?(Id.?at?p.?142.)
In?the?case?at?bar?Officer?Miller?was?prepared?to?give?expert?testimony?to?the?foregoing?effect.?Such?testimony?would?therefore?”assist?the?trier?of?fact”?(Evid.?Code,???801,?subd.?(a))?by?giving?the?jurors?information?they?needed?to?objectively?evaluate?the?People’s?evidence.?Of?course,?to?be?admissible?the?testimony?also?had?to?be?relevant.?(Id.,???350.)?But?”the?trial?court?is?vested?with?wide?discretion?in?determining?relevance”?under?the?Evidence?Code.?(People?v.?Green?(1980)?27?Cal.3d?1,?19?[164?Cal.Rptr.?1,?609?P.2d?468].)?Defendant?fails?to?show?an?abuse?of?such?discretion.?Although?Officer?Miller’s?testimony?was?admitted?during?the?prosecution’s?case-in-chief,?the?jurors?already?knew?much?about?defendant?at?that?point,?and?what?they?[53?Cal.3d?1304]?knew?did?not?fit?the?stereotype.?They?knew?defendant?was?not?a?stranger?to?the?victim:?the?first?witness?in?the?trial,?Stephanie’s?mother,?had?testified?that?she?dated?defendant?for?several?months?before?the?crime?took?place,?and?that?Stephanie?knew?him?through?that?relationship.?From?the?same?witness’s?testimony?that?she?had?had?sexual?intercourse?with?defendant,?the?jurors?could?reasonably?infer?he?was?not?a?homosexual.?And?the?jurors?could?obviously?see?for?themselves?that?he?was?not?an?old?man.fn.?10?In?these?circumstances?the?court?did?not?abuse?its?discretion?in?finding?that?the?proposed?expert?testimony?of?Officer?Miller?was?relevant?at?the?time?it?was?offered.?(Cf.?People?v.?Sanchez,?supra,?208?Cal.App.3d?721,?735-736?[evidence?on?child?sexual?abuse?accommodation?syndrome?admissible?in?People’s?case-in-?chief?because?issue?had?been?raised?by?earlier?testimony?of?prosecution?witnesses].)
II
Defendant?next?contends?the?trial?court?abused?its?discretion?in?limiting?the?scope?of?his?character?evidence.?As?noted?above,?the?court?allowed?defense?character?witnesses?Daybell?and?Tarkanian?to?testify?that?defendant?had?an?excellent?reputation?for?truth?and?veracity?in?the?relevant?community.?The?court?disallowed?additional?character?evidence?on?a?different?topic-defendant’s?sexuality-offered?by?three?witnesses?whom?defendant?did?not?identify?by?name.?Two?of?these?witnesses?were?women?who?had?dated?defendant?for?approximately?six?months,?had?been?sexually?intimate?with?him?during?that?period,?and?thereafter?had?continued?their?friendship?with?him;?each?also?had?a?daughter?of?her?own.?The?third?witness?was?a?close?male?friend?from?defendant’s?college?days?who?had?often?double-dated?with?him?and?had?met?many?of?the?women?defendant?dated.
The?record?of?what?these?witnesses?would?actually?have?said?is?unsatisfactory.?Rather?than?putting?the?witnesses?on?the?stand?and?asking?them?specific?questions,?defense?counsel?presented?their?proposed?testimony?by?means?of?a?written?offer?of?proof.?Although?the?procedure?is?proper,?in?this?case?much?of?the?wording?of?counsel’s?offer?of?proof?was?ambiguous?or?conclusory,?and?counsel?did?not?further?explain?it?at?the?hearing.?The?trial?court?interpreted?the?offer?in?order?to?rule?on?it;?the?court’s?interpretation?was?reasonable,?and?counsel?apparently?accepted?it.?We?shall?therefore?be?guided?by?that?interpretation?in?the?discussion?that?follows.
The?proposed?testimony?of?defendant’s?additional?character?witnesses?may?conveniently?be?grouped?into?two?categories.?[53?Cal.3d?1305] A
[5a]?First,?all?three?witnesses?proposed?to?testify?that?in?their?opinion?defendant?is?not?a?”sexual?deviant.”?The?male?character?witness?would?have?based?this?opinion?on?his?observations?of?defendant’s?assertedly?normal?sexual?conduct?with?adult?women.?The?women?character?witnesses?would?have?based?their?opinions?to?this?effect?on?two?sources:?(1)?their?assertedly?normal?personal?sexual?experiences?with?defendant,?and?(2)?their?observations?of?defendant’s?conduct?with?their?daughters?during?the?period?of?their?relationship.?The?trial?court?disallowed?this?testimony?primarily?on?the?ground?that?the?question?whether?a?person?is?a?sexual?deviant?can?only?be?answered?by?expert?testimony.?Although?we?need?not?go?so?far,?on?a?related?ground?we?will?agree?with?the?ruling?in?part?and?disagree?with?it?in?part.Evidence?Code?section?1101,?subdivision?(a),?declares?the?general?rule?that?”evidence?of?a?person’s?character?or?a?trait?of?his?or?her?character?(whether?in?the?form?of?an?opinion,?evidence?of?reputation,?or?evidence?of?specific?instances?of?his?or?her?conduct)?is?inadmissible?when?offered?to?prove?his?or?her?conduct?on?a?specified?occasion.”?Section?1102?of?the?same?code?(hereafter?section?1102)?provides?the?exception?that?defendant?here?sought?to?invoke:?”In?a?criminal?action,?evidence?of?the?defendant’s?character?or?a?trait?of?his?character?in?the?form?of?an?opinion?or?evidence?of?his?reputation?is?not?made?inadmissible?by?Section?1101?if?such?evidence?is:?[?]?(a)?Offered?by?the?defendant?to?prove?his?conduct?in?conformity?with?such?character?or?trait?of?character.”?[6]?This?exception?allows?a?criminal?defendant?to?introduce?evidence,?either?by?opinion?or?reputation,?of?his?character?or?a?trait?of?his?character?that?is?”relevant?to?the?charge?made?against?him.”?(Cal.?Law?Revision?Com.?com.,?29B?West’s?Ann.?Evid.?Code?(1966?ed.)???1102,?p.?12.)?Such?evidence?is?relevant?if?it?is?inconsistent?with?the?offense?charged-e.g.,?honesty,?when?the?charge?is?theft-and?hence?may?support?an?inference?that?the?defendant?is?unlikely?to?have?committed?the?offense.?In?appropriate?cases,?such?circumstantial?evidence?”may?be?enough?to?raise?a?reasonable?doubt?in?the?mind?of?the?trier?of?fact?concerning?the?defendant’s?guilt.”?(Id.?at?p.?13;?see?also?Michelson?v.?United?States?(1948)?335?U.S.?469,?476?[93?L.Ed.?168,?174,?69?S.Ct.?213].)
We?recently?held?that?a?defendant?charged?with?child?molesting?may?introduce?such?character?evidence?by?means?of?opinion?testimony?of?an?expert?witness.?(People?v.?Stoll?(1989)?49?Cal.3d?1136?[265?Cal.Rptr.?111,?783?P.2d?698]?(hereafter?Stoll).)?Following?our?decision?in?People?v.?Jones?(1954)?42?Cal.2d?219,?222-225?[266?P.2d?38],?we?held?in?Stoll?that?in?a?child?molestation?case?(1)?the?fact?that?the?defendant?is?not?a?sexual?deviant?is?a?relevant?character?trait?within?the?meaning?of?section?1102,?and?(2)?the?statute?allows?a?defendant?to?prove?that?trait?by?the?opinion?testimony?of?an?[53?Cal.3d?1306]?expert?witness.?(49?Cal.3d?at?pp.?1152-1155.)?It?is?true?that?nothing?we?said?in?Stoll?limited?such?opinion?testimony?to?that?of?an?expert;?nevertheless,?our?analysis?in?Stoll?points?the?way?for?us?today.
After?concluding?that?lack?of?sexual?deviance?is?a?character?trait?subject?to?proof?by?opinion?testimony,?we?turned?in?Stoll?to?the?specific?rules?for?admitting?such?testimony.?The?Evidence?Code?sets?forth?those?rules?in?its?sections?800?(lay?opinion?testimony)?and?801?(expert?opinion?testimony).?In?Stoll?(49?Cal.3d?at?pp.?1153-1154)?we?read?the?latter?provision?into?section?1102,?and?inquired?whether?expert?opinion?testimony?concerning?a?defendant’s?lack?of?sexual?deviance?relates?to?a?subject?beyond?the?ordinary?experience?of?the?triers?of?fact?(Evid.?Code,???801,?subd.?(a))?and?is?based?on?sources?on?which?experts?may?reasonably?rely?(id.,?subd.?(b)).
[5b]?Following?Stoll,?we?now?read?Evidence?Code?section?800?into?section?1102?and?inquire?whether?lay?opinion?testimony?concerning?a?defendant’s?lack?of?sexual?deviance?satisfies?the?requirements?of?the?former.?Evidence?Code?section?800?limits?lay?opinion?testimony?to?an?opinion?that?is?”(a)?Rationally?based?on?the?perception?of?the?witness;?and?(b)?Helpful?to?a?clear?understanding?of?his?testimony.”?[7]?Our?focus?is?on?the?requirement?of?subdivision?(a)?of?this?statute.fn.?11?The?meaning?of?subdivision?(a)?is?clear:?”A?witness?who?is?not?testifying?as?an?expert?may?testify?in?the?form?of?an?opinion?only?if?the?opinion?is?based?on?his?own?perception.”?(Cal.?Law?Revision?Com.?com.,?29B?West’s?Ann.?Evid.?Code?(1966?ed.)???800,?p.?376,?italics?added.)?As?the?drafters?acknowledge?(ibid.),?this?was?also?the?common?law?rule.?(See,?e.g.,?Stuart?v.?Dotts?(1949)?89?Cal.App.2d?683,?686-687?[201?P.2d?820];?Manney?v.?Housing?Authority?(1947)?79?Cal.App.2d?453,?459?[180?P.2d?69].)?[8]?In?this?context,?moreover,?the?drafters?define?”perception”?as?the?process?of?acquiring?knowledge?”through?one’s?senses”?(Evid.?Code,???170),?i.e.,?by?personal?observation.fn.?12?[53?Cal.3d?1307]The?cases?allowing?lay?opinion?testimony?uniformly?note?that?it?was?based?on?the?witness’s?personal?observation.?Thus?in?Jordan?v.?Great?Western?Motorways?(1931)?213?Cal.?606,?612?[2?P.2d?786],?this?court?reasoned:?”Over?objection?of?counsel,?plaintiff?was?allowed?to?testify?as?to?the?speed?of?the?bus?and?[her?driver’s]?automobile.?We?find?no?error?in?the?trial?court’s?ruling.?A?person?having?the?opportunity?to?observe?the?speed?of?a?moving?vehicle?is?qualified?to?give?his?opinion?as?to?such?speed,?and?his?previous?experience?or?lack?of?experience?goes?to?the?weight?rather?than?to?the?competency?of?the?testimony.?[Citations.]?[?]?Nor?do?we?find?error?in?the?ruling?permitting?a?lay?witness?to?testify?regarding?the?condition?of?plaintiff’s?health.?Lay?witnesses?having?the?requisite?opportunity?for?observation?may?testify?as?to?the?health?of?another.”?(Italics?added.)
In?Kline?v.?Santa?Barbara?etc.?Ry.?Co.?(1907)?150?Cal.?741,?750?[90?P.?125],?this?court?held?admissible?lay?opinion?testimony?as?to?the?extent?of?an?accident?victim’s?pain?and?suffering:?”It?does?not?require?an?expert?to?tell?whether?a?person?suffers.?The?appearance?of?a?person?who?suffers?severely?is?sufficient?to?manifest?his?condition?to?any?one?of?ordinary?intelligence?and?experience.?These?witnesses?had?all?observed?her,?had?heard?her?groans?and?complaints,?and?were?competent?to?give?an?opinion?as?to?her?suffering.”?(Italics?added.)
In?People?v.?Manoogian?(1904)?141?Cal.?592?[75?P.?177],?this?court?held?admissible?lay?opinion?testimony?as?to?whether?the?defendant?was?acting?rationally?or?irrationally.?The?court?reasoned?that?the?questions?asked?of?the?witnesses?on?this?topic?”did?not?call?for?the?opinion?of?the?witnesses?as?to?the?mental?sanity?of?the?defendant,?but?for?the?result?of?their?observations?at?the?various?times?they?came?in?contact?with?him,?as?to?his?appearance?in?the?respects?suggested.”?(Id.?at?p.?595,?italics?added.)?Summing?up,?the?court?reiterated?that?such?questions?”simply?call?for?the?result?of?the?observation?of?the?witness?as?to?the?manner?or?conduct?of?such?person?at?a?certain?time.”?(Id.?at?pp.?597-?598,?italics?added.)
In?Healy?v.?Visalia?etc.?R.R.?Co.?(1894)?101?Cal.?585?[36?P.?125],?a?woman?was?thrown?from?a?railroad?car?when?it?derailed?and?a?fellow?passenger?was?asked?for?his?lay?opinion?as?to?whether?an?average?person?could?have?withstood?the?force?of?the?accident.?This?court?held?the?question?admissible,?reasoning?that?it?”did?not?call?for?an?opinion?from?[the?witness]?depending?upon?facts?which?he?had?subsequently?learned,?but?he?was?asked?to?describe?the?effect?of?the?concussion?or?jar?caused?by?the?car?leaving?the?track,?as?one?of?the?facts?out?of?which?the?injury?had?arisen,?and?which?he?[53?Cal.3d?1308]?had?personally?observed?and?felt.?[?]?…?Such?testimony?is?competent?upon?the?same?principle?that?permits?evidence?showing?the?strength?or?force?of?a?blow,?the?distance?at?which?a?sound?can?be?heard,?or?the?direction?from?which?it?comes,?the?speed?of?a?horse,?the?degree?of?cold?or?heat,?or?of?light?or?darkness.?In?any?such?instance?a?witness?who?had?a?personal?experience?or?knowledge?of?the?sensation?is?competent?to?testify,?although?his?answer?is?only?his?opinion?of?the?matter.”?(Id.?at?pp.?589-590,?italics?added.)
In?People?v.?Ravey?(1954)?122?Cal.App.2d?699,?703?[265?P.2d?154],?the?court?held?admissible?lay?opinion?testimony?as?to?whether?the?defendant?was?intoxicated,?reasoning?that?”the?question?of?whether?a?person?was?intoxicated?is?not?necessarily?a?matter?of?expert?testimony,?as?any?layman?can?give?his?opinion?based?upon?his?own?observation.”?(Italics?added.)?And?in?People?v.?Williams?(1988)?44?Cal.3d?883,?914?[245?Cal.Rptr.?336,?751?P.2d?395],?the?defendant?complained?that?a?detective?and?a?jailer?in?whose?custody?he?had?spent?time?gave?nonexpert?testimony?”that?in?their?opinion?defendant?was?not?’strung?out’?[i.e.,?intoxicated?by?drugs]?when?they?observed?him.”?In?a?well-considered?dictum?we?found?no?reason?to?distinguish?lay?opinion?on?drug-induced?intoxication?from?the?settled?rule?allowing?such?opinion?on?alcohol-induced?intoxication.?(Id.?at?pp.?914-915.)
[9]?By?contrast,?when?a?lay?witness?offers?an?opinion?that?goes?beyond?the?facts?the?witness?personally?observed,?it?is?held?inadmissible.?Thus?in?Kinsey?v.?Pacific?Mutual?Life?Ins.?Co.?(1918)?178?Cal.?153?[172?P.?1098],?the?plaintiff’s?decedent?died?while?bathing?in?the?surf,?and?in?plaintiff’s?action?on?decedent’s?life?insurance?policy?the?issue?was?whether?the?cause?of?death?was?accidental?drowning?or?heart?failure?arising?from?a?preexisting?condition.?Defendant?insurance?company?called?as?witnesses?the?lifeguards?who?assisted?in?rescuing?the?decedent’s?body?from?the?water?and?in?attempting?to?resuscitate?him.?The?defendant?asked?these?witnesses?questions?eliciting?”their?opinion?based?upon?their?observation?of?deceased?as?to?whether?the?death?of?deceased?was?due?to?drowning.”?(Id.?at?p.?156,?italics?added.)?The?trial?court?excluded?the?testimony,?and?this?court?found?no?abuse?of?discretion?in?the?ruling:?”The?evidence,?while?perhaps?showing?that?these?witnesses?were?skilled?in?the?methods?of?rescuing?drowning?persons?from?the?water,?fails?to?show?that?they?had?any?knowledge,?gained?by?experience?or?otherwise,?upon?which,?from?their?observation?of?the?appearance?of?the?body?of?deceased,?they?were?as?a?matter?of?law?entitled?to?testify?to?their?opinions?as?to?the?cause?of?the?death?of?deceased.”?(Ibid.,?italics?added.) [5c]?In?the?case?at?bar?we?apply?this?rule?to?the?proposed?testimony?of?defendant’s?three?additional?character?witnesses?that?in?their?opinion?defendant?is?not?a?”sexual?deviant,”?i.e.,?in?the?words?of?defendant’s?offer?of?proof,?”a?person?of?lustful?or?lewd?conduct?with?children.”?The?proposed?[53?Cal.3d?1309]?opinion?testimony?of?the?male?character?witness?to?this?effect?was?not?based?on?personal?observation?of?defendant’s?”conduct?with?children”;?under?the?foregoing?cases,?therefore,?the?trial?court?did?not?abuse?its?discretion?in?disallowing?his?testimony.?To?the?extent?that?the?same?opinion?of?the?women?character?witnesses?was?based?on?their?private?sexual?experiences?with?defendant?rather?than?on?their?observation?of?his?behavior?with?their?daughters,?the?trial?court?could?disallow?it?for?the?same?reason.fn.?13The?opinion?of?the?women?character?witnesses,?however,?was?also?based?on?their?observation?of?defendant’s?conduct?with?their?daughters.?According?to?the?offer?of?proof,?the?women?proposed?to?testify?that?in?the?course?of?their?relationship?with?defendant?they?observed?his?conduct?with?their?daughters?and?saw?no?unusual?behavior?either?by?defendant?or?by?their?daughters,?and?that?it?is?their?opinion,?based?on?those?personal?perceptions,?that?defendant?is?not?a?person?given?to?lewd?conduct?with?children.?Because?the?latter?conclusion?of?the?witnesses?was?based?on?their?direct?observation?of?defendant’s?behavior?with?their?daughters,?it?was?both?a?proper?subject?of?lay?opinion?testimony?and?relevant?to?the?charge?of?child?molestation.?Indeed,?the?People?do?not?contend?otherwise.?Rather,?the?People?claim?the?testimony?was?inadmissible?on?a?wholly?different?ground,?i.e.,?that?its?admission?would?have?violated?the?rule?against?proving?a?character?trait?of?the?accused?by?means?of?specific?acts.?(People?v.?Cordray?(1962)?209?Cal.App.2d?425,?439-440?[26?Cal.Rptr.?42];?see?Cal.?Law?Revision?Com.?com.,?29B?West’s?Ann.?Evid.?Code?(1966?ed.)???1102,?pp.?13-14.)?The?trial?court?so?ruled?and?the?Court?of?Appeal?agreed,?but?we?do?not.
A?fair?reading?of?the?offer?of?proof?shows?that?the?women?witnesses?would?not?have?limited?their?testimony?to?specific?instances?in?which?defendant?had?the?opportunity?to,?but?did?not,?molest?their?daughters.fn.?14?Instead,?the?witnesses?proposed?to?testify?that?they?observed?defendant’s?behavior?with?their?children?throughout?the?course?of?their?relationship?with?him,?and?their?opinion?that?he?is?not?a?person?given?to?lewd?conduct?with?children?arose?from?that?experience?as?a?whole.?Thus?viewed,?the?proffered?testimony?was?intended?to?prove?the?relevant?character?trait?not?by?specific?acts?of?”nonmolestation,”?but?by?the?witnesses’?opinion?of?that?trait?based?on?their?long-term?observation?of?defendant’s?course?of?consistently?normal?behavior?[53?Cal.3d?1310]?with?their?children.?[10]?The?trial?court?should?have?allowed?such?testimony.fn.?15
B
The?offer?of?proof?also?included?proposed?testimony?by?the?women?character?witnesses?to?the?effect?that?(1)?defendant?has?a?reputation?in?the?community?for?”normalcy?in?his?sexual?tastes”?and?(2)?in?their?opinion?defendant?is?a?person?of?”high?moral?character.”?As?to?these?two?items,?however,?the?record?is?even?more?unsatisfactory?than?the?record?of?the?testimony?thus?far?discussed.?The?quoted?phrases?are?patently?ambiguous,?each?having?several?plausible?meanings.?Yet?defense?counsel?did?not?explain?either?of?these?items?at?the?hearing.?Perhaps?because?of?their?obvious?vagueness,?the?trial?court?did?not?discuss?them?either;?and?although?we?must?infer?that?the?court?impliedly?disallowed?both?items,?there?is?no?record?of?the?reasons?for?that?ruling.?Our?review?of?their?admissibility?will?therefore?be?brief.
[11]?We?begin?with?the?proposed?testimony?that?defendant?has?a?reputation?for?”normalcy?in?his?sexual?tastes.”?In?the?present?context?that?quaintly?genteel?phrase?can?reasonably?be?taken?to?mean?either?that?defendant?has?a?reputation?for?being?sexually?attracted?to?adult?women?or?that?he?does?not?have?a?reputation?for?being?sexually?attracted?to?young?girls.?We?need?not?reach?the?question?of?its?relevance?under?the?former?construction,?however,?because?under?the?latter?construction?the?proposed?testimony?is?relevant?to?a?charge?of?child?molestation.?Evidence?that?a?defendant?does?not?have?a?bad?reputation?for?a?relevant?character?trait?is?admissible?as?tending?to?show?that?he?has?a?good?reputation?for?that?trait.?(People?v.?Hoffman?(1926)?199?Cal.?155,?161?[248?P.?504];?People?v.?Castillo?(1935)?5?Cal.App.2d?194,?198?[42?P.2d?682],?and?cases?cited;?see?also?Michelson?v.?United?States,?supra,?335?U.S.?469,?478?[93?L.Ed.?168,?175].)?And?under?either?construction?the?testimony?is?not?objectionable?on?the?ground?discussed?in?a?preceding?[53?Cal.3d?1311]?portion?of?this?opinion,?because?it?is?evidence?of?reputation?rather?than?lay?opinion.?”Reputation?is?not?what?a?character?witness?may?know?about?defendant.?Reputation?is?the?estimation?in?which?an?individual?is?held;?in?other?words,?the?character?imputed?to?an?individual?rather?than?what?is?actually?known?of?him?either?by?the?witness?or?others.”?(People?v.?McDaniel?(1943)?59?Cal.App.2d?672,?676?[140?P.2d?88].)?The?rule?that?lay?opinion?testimony?must?be?based?on?the?witness’s?personal?observation?thus?does?not?apply?to?reputation?testimony,?and?indeed?the?Evidence?Code?imposes?no?such?requirement.?The?trial?court?should?therefore?have?allowed?this?testimony. [12]?We?turn?to?the?proffered?opinion?of?the?witnesses?that?defendant?is?a?person?of?”high?moral?character.”?In?the?context?of?the?offer?of?proof?we?construe?the?word?”moral”?in?this?phrase?to?refer?to?sexual?morality.?Thus?construed,?”moral?character”?is?a?trait?that?is?relevant?to?a?sex?offense?charge,?including?the?present?prosecution?for?child?molesting.?We?are?cited?to?no?California?decision?that?squarely?so?holds,?but?such?evidence?has?routinely?been?admitted?in?trials?for?sex?offenses?without?drawing?adverse?comment?by?reviewing?courts.?(See,?e.g.,?People?v.?Wrigley?(1968)?69?Cal.2d?149,?153-154?[70?Cal.Rptr.?116,?443?P.2d?580];?People?v.?White?(1954)43?Cal.2d?740,?744?[278?P.2d?9];?People?v.?Jones,?supra,?42?Cal.2d?219,?222;?People?v.?Hurd?(1970)?5?Cal.App.3d?865,?880?[85?Cal.Rptr.?718];?People?v.?Ray?(1960)?187?Cal.App.2d?182,?187?[9?Cal.Rptr.?678];?People?v.?Rucker?(1960)?186?Cal.App.2d?342,?346?[9?Cal.Rptr.?1];?People?v.?Spigno?(1957)?156?Cal.App.2d?279,?283?[319?P.2d?458].)?Again,?therefore,?the?trial?court?should?have?allowed?this?testimony.III [13]?The?court’s?error?in?excluding?the?foregoing?three?additional?items?of?character?testimony?is?governed?by?the?standard?of?prejudice?prescribed?both?by?Constitution?(art.?VI,???13)?and?by?statute?(Evid.?Code,???354),?and?explained?in?People?v.?Watson?(1956)?46?Cal.2d?818,?836?[299?P.2d?243].?(See,?e.g.,?Stoll,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?1136,?1161-1163?[applying?Watson?test];?People?v.?Bledsoe,?supra,?36?Cal.3d?236,?251-252?[same].)fn.?16?[53?Cal.3d?1312]
Although?each?case?turns?on?its?own?facts,?we?may?profitably?compare?the?question?before?us?with?our?prejudice?analysis?in?Stoll,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?1136,?in?which?we?held?reversible?under?the?Watson?test?the?exclusion?of?similar?character?testimony?in?a?child?molestation?case.?We?stressed?in?Stoll?certain?facts?that?might?well?have?undermined?the?jury’s?confidence?in?the?stories?of?the?child?witnesses:?in?their?testimony?four?of?the?children?contradicted?key?parts?of?each?other’s?account?of?the?event,?four?admitted?they?had?lied?at?the?preliminary?hearing,?two?admitted?they?had?lied?at?trial,?and?prior?statements?by?five?of?the?children?contradicted?parts?of?their?testimony.?(Id.?at?p.?1162.)?In?the?case?before?us?there?were?no?such?contradictions?or?admitted?untruths?in?Stephanie’s?testimony,?nor?did?the?defense?suggest?any?persuasive?motive?for?Stephanie?to?lie?repeatedly,?over?a?period?of?more?than?two?years,?to?her?mother,?to?the?police,?and?to?the?jury.
We?may?also?compare?the?case?at?bar?with?People?v.?Jones,?supra,?42?Cal.2d?219,?a?pre-Watson?case?in?which?we?likewise?held?reversible?the?exclusion?of?such?character?testimony.?In?Jones?we?stressed?that?the?testimony?of?the?child?witness?was?partially?impeached?and?that?there?was?evidence?she?had?a?bad?reputation?for?truth?and?veracity.?(Id.?at?p.?226.)?Here?Stephanie’s?testimony?was?not?impeached?in?any?way,?and?her?reputation?for?truth?and?veracity?was?untarnished.?Nor?is?this?a?case?such?as?People?v.?Castillo,?supra,?5?Cal.App.2d?194,?198,?in?which?the?reviewing?court?described?the?victim’s?story?as?”weirdly?improbable.”?There?is?nothing?inherently?implausible?about?Stephanie’s?testimony.
In?addition,?it?is?not?unlikely?that?the?jury?would?have?given?less?weight?to?the?lay?testimony?excluded?here?than?to?the?expert?opinion?excluded?in?Stoll?and?Jones;?while?that?difference?does?not?affect?its?admissibility,?it?may?affect?its?weight?for?purposes?of?prejudice?analysis.?Indeed,?even?while?providing?for?its?admissiblity?the?drafters?of?the?Evidence?Code?concede?that?reputation?testimony,?the?traditional?means?of?proving?character,?is?”the?least?reliable”?form?of?such?evidence?and?is?”little?more?than?accumulated?hearsay.”?(Cal.?Law?Revision?Com.?com.,?29B?West’s?Ann.?Evid.?Code?(1966?ed.)???1102,?p.?13.)
Finally,?although?defendant?seeks?to?characterize?the?evidence?in?this?case?as?evenly?balanced?(see?People?v.?Castillo,?supra,?5?Cal.App.2d?194,?199),?a?review?of?the?transcript?shows?it?was?not?merely?”her?word?against?his”:?to?have?acquitted?defendant,?the?jury?would?have?had?to?believe?not?only?that?Stephanie?was?lying,?but?that?Anita?was?lying?as?well.?For?example,?Anita’s?testimony?describing?her?confrontation?with?defendant?after?Stephanie?[53?Cal.3d?1313]?reported?the?molestation?to?her?did?not?depend?on?the?truth?of?that?report-on?that?topic?Anita?was?not?simply?repeating?the?report-yet?it?differed?dramatically?from?defendant’s?version?of?the?confrontation;?to?that?extent?at?least,?Anita?and?defendant?cannot?both?have?been?telling?the?truth.?In?these?circumstances,?the?speed?with?which?the?jury?reached?its?verdict-after?only?45?minutes?of?deliberation-implies?that?to?the?triers?of?fact?the?case?may?not?have?been?as?close?as?defendant?now?speculates.
For?all?these?reasons,?after?a?full?review?of?the?record?we?cannot?conclude?that?it?is?reasonably?probable?that?a?verdict?more?favorable?to?defendant?would?have?been?reached?in?the?absence?of?this?error.?(People?v.?Watson,?supra,?46?Cal.2d?818,?836.)
The?judgment?of?the?Court?of?Appeal?is?affirmed.
Lucas,?C.?J.,?Kennard,?J.,?Arabian,?J.,?and?Baxter,?J.,?concurred.
BROUSSARD,?J.,
Concurring?and?Dissenting.
I?agree?with?the?majority?that?the?trial?court?did?not?err?in?admitting?the?expert?evidence?offered?by?the?prosecution,?but?I?cannot?join?in?the?majority’s?analysis?of?the?trial?court’s?ruling?on?the?good?character?evidence?proffered?by?defendant?or,?in?particular,?in?the?conclusion?that?the?trial?court’s?error?in?excluding?much?of?this?evidence?was?not?prejudicial.?Past?California?decisions?have?repeatedly?recognized?that?in?cases?of?this?nature,?in?which?a?defendant?is?accused?of?a?sexual?offense?against?a?child?and?the?jury’s?determination?necessarily?turns?on?the?relative?credibility?of?the?defendant?and?the?alleged?child?victim,?a?defendant’s?right?to?introduce?evidence?of?his?good?moral?character?is?of?crucial?importance.?Such?evidence?may?be?the?only,?or?at?least?the?most?significant,?evidence?that?an?innocent?defendant?can?present?to?support?his?own?denial?of?the?offense.?As?a?consequence,?the?authorities?suggest?that?in?this?context?the?erroneous?exclusion?of?such?good?character?evidence?generally?cannot?be?found?harmless.?This?general?principle?has?particular?force?in?the?present?case?because?the?record?discloses?that?this?was?a?much?more?closely?balanced?case?than?the?majority?opinion?allows.?Given?the?nature?of?the?trial?court’s?error?and?the?state?of?the?evidence,?I?believe?that?reversal?is?clearly?required.
I
In?analyzing?the?trial?court’s?ruling,?it?is?helpful?to?begin?with?a?brief?overview?of?the?general?rules?governing?character?evidence?in?criminal?proceedings.?(See?generally?Wydick,?Character?Evidence:?A?Guided?Tour?of?the?Grotesque?Structure?(1987)?21?U.C.?Davis?L.Rev.?123.)?In?California,?as?in?virtually?all?jurisdictions?in?this?country,?the?prosecution?in?a?criminal?case?[53?Cal.3d?1314]?is?not?permitted?to?present?evidence?of?the?bad?character?of?the?defendant?to?prove?that?the?defendant?committed?the?charged?offense?unless?and?until?the?accused?presents?evidence?of?his?own?good?character.?(See?Evid.?Code,????1101,?subd.?(a),?1102,?subd.?(b).)?The?defendant,?on?the?other?hand,?is?specifically?authorized?by?statute?to?present?good?character?evidence?in?any?criminal?case.?(See?Evid.?Code,???1102,?subd.?(a).)
In?Michelson?v.?United?States?(1948)?335?U.S.?469?[93?L.Ed.?168,?69?S.Ct.?213],?the?leading?United?States?Supreme?Court?decision?on?the?subject,?Justice?Jackson?explained?the?basis?for?permitting?a?defendant?to?introduce?such?good?character?evidence:?”[The]?line?of?inquiry?firmly?denied?to?the?State?is?opened?to?the?defendant?because?character?is?relevant?in?resolving?probabilities?of?guilt.?He?may?introduce?affirmative?testimony?that?the?general?estimate?of?his?character?is?so?favorable?that?the?jury?may?infer?that?he?would?not?be?likely?to?commit?the?offense?charged.?This?privilege?is?sometimes?valuable?to?a?defendant?for?this?Court?has?held?that?such?testimony?alone,?in?some?circumstances,?may?be?enough?to?raise?a?reasonable?doubt?of?guilt?….?[Citation.]”?(Id.?at?p.?476?[93?L.Ed.?at?p.?174],?fn.?omitted.?See?also?People?v.?Jones?(1954)?42?Cal.2d?219,?223-224?[266?P.2d?38].)
Although?it?has?sometimes?been?suggested?that?the?sharp?distinction?between?the?right?of?the?defendant?and?that?of?the?prosecution?to?open?the?inquiry?into?the?defendant’s?character?is?attributable?to?the?law’s?traditional?solicitude?for?the?criminal?defendant?and?to?the?extremely?prejudicial?nature?of?bad?character?evidence,?a?leading?textbook?maintains?that?the?disparate?rules?also?reflect?the?relative?probative?value?of?good?character?evidence?as?compared?to?bad?character?evidence:?”Evidence?that?the?criminal?defendant?has?a?bad?character?may?show?his?capacity?to?engage?in?crime?but?is?little?proof?that?he?was?involved?in?the?particular?crime?charged,?while?proof?of?his?good?character?puts?him?in?a?class?of?people?who?are?highly?unlikely?to?engage?in?criminal?conduct.?We?admit?the?latter,?not?merely?because?it?is?less?prejudicial?to?the?defendant,?but?because?it?is?much?more?probative?of?guilt?or?innocence.”?(22?Wright?&?Graham,?Federal?Practice?&?Procedure?(1978)???5236,?p.?381.)
Although?good?character?evidence?may?be?more?probative?of?guilt?or?innocence?than?bad?character?evidence,?it?is?important?to?recognize?that?good?character?evidence,?of?even?the?most?positive?and?probative?sort,?does?not?purport?to?establish?conclusively?that?the?defendant?could?not?have?committed?the?charged?offense.?”[O]ne?should?not?ignore?the?fact?that?persons?of?good?character?may?commit?a?criminal?act.?The?fact?that?they?usually?do?not?do?so,?or?probably?do?not?do?so,?only?makes?it?improbable,?not?impossible,?for?the?defendant?to?have?committed?the?act.”?(Boller,?Proof?of?the?Defendant’s?Character?(1974)?64?Mil.?L.?Rev.?37,?44.)?Nonetheless,?as?[53?Cal.3d?1315]?the?quoted?passage?from?Michelson?v.?United?States,?supra,?335?U.S.?469,?476?[93?L.Ed.?168,?174],?explains,?a?criminal?defendant?is?entitled?to?have?the?jurors?consider?such?probabilities?in?determining?whether?they?are?convinced?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt?that?the?defendant?is?guilty?of?the?charged?offense.
It?is?also?relevant?to?keep?in?mind?that?a?defendant’s?introduction?of?good?character?evidence?is?by?no?means?a?risk-free?proposition.?”Two?grave?risks?face?the?criminal?defendant?who?chooses?to?…?offer[]?evidence?of?her?good?character.?The?first?and?most?serious?risk?…?arises?when?the?prosecutor?cross-examines?the?defendant’s?character?witnesses.?…?[W]hen?cross-examining?either?a?reputation?or?opinion?witness,?the?prosecutor?can?inquire?about?specific?acts?in?the?defendant’s?past?to?assess?the?value?of?the?reputation?or?opinion?testimony.?…?[Although?in]?theory,?the?trier?of?fact?cannot?use?the?prosecutor’s?questions?about?specific?acts?as?evidence?that?the?acts?occurred?…?[and]?upon?request,?the?defendant?is?entitled?to?a?limiting?jury?instruction[,]?…?[it?is?well?recognized]?that?jurors?probably?cannot?follow?a?judge’s?instruction?not?to?use?the?question?and?responses?about?specific?acts?as?evidence?that?the?acts?did?occur.?…?The?second?risk?is?[that]?…?the?prosecutor?can?call?rebuttal?witnesses?to?testify?that?the?defendant’s?character?is?bad.?As?Justice?Jackson?explained?in?Michelson,?a?part?of?'[t]he?price?a?defendant?must?pay?for?attempting?to?prove?his?good?name?is?to?throw?open?the?entire?subject?which?the?law?has?kept?closed?for?his?benefit?and?to?make?himself?vulnerable?where?the?law?otherwise?shields?him.’?”?(Wydick,?Character?Evidence:?A?Guided?Tour?of?the?Grotesque?Structure,?supra,?21?U.C.?Davis?L.Rev.?123,?144-?149,?fns.?and?citations?omitted.)?Accordingly,?as?the?Court?of?Appeal?explained?in?People?v.?Pangelina?(1984)?153?Cal.App.3d?1,?8?[199?Cal.Rptr.?916]:?”For?[these]?reason[s],?most?experienced?criminal?lawyers?do?not?present?character?evidence?unless?their?client’s?reputation?is?unassailable.”
In?sum,?the?right?of?a?criminal?defendant?to?present?good?character?evidence?is?an?important,?and?at?times?even?a?crucial,?right,?but?the?consequences?that?flow?from?a?defendant’s?decision?to?open?up?the?subject?of?character?make?the?right?most?valuable?to?those?whose?character?or?reputation?is?unimpeachable.
II
As?the?majority?indicate,?defendant?proposed?to?present?evidence?of?his?good?character?with?respect?to?two?separate?traits-(1)?his?character?for?truthfulness?and?veracity?and?(2)?his?good?moral?character?with?regard?to?sexual?matters.?The?trial?court?ruled?that?if?defendant?testified,?he?could?present?evidence?of?his?good?reputation?for?truth?and?veracity.?At?the?same?[53?Cal.3d?1316]?time,?however,?the?court?rejected?the?proposed?testimony?relating?to?defendant’s?good?moral?character?with?regard?to?sexual?matters.
In?analyzing?the?trial?court’s?ruling?on?the?latter?point,?the?majority?note?that?defendant?set?forth?a?summary?of?the?proposed?testimony?in?a?written?offer?of?proof.?The?majority?opinion?is?critical?of?the?wording?of?defendant’s?offer?of?proof,?yet?it?never?quotes?the?offer?of?proof?in?full,?but?instead?proceeds?to?divide?the?offer?of?proof?into?discrete?segments?and?to?analyze?each?segment?separately.?I?believe?the?majority’s?analysis?obscures?the?governing?legal?principles?and?results?in?a?distorted?view?of?defendant’s?offer?of?proof.
Instead?of?parsing?defendant’s?offer?of?proof?into?distinct?segments,?we?should?begin?by?identifying,?first,?the?particular?”character?or?trait?of?character”?of?which?defendant?was?entitled?to?present?evidence,?and,?second,?the?general?kinds?of?evidence?defendant?could?produce?to?prove?such?character?trait.?Once?these?general?principles?are?understood,?we?will?have?an?appropriate?basis?for?assessing?defendant’s?offer?of?proof.
As?to?the?initial?point-the?particular?trait?of?character?that?is?relevant?when?a?defendant?is?charged?with?a?sex?offense?against?a?child-the?majority?opinion?ultimately?recognizes?that?in?this?type?of?case?a?defendant?is?entitled?to?present?evidence?of?his?”good?moral?character,”?it?being?understood?that,?in?this?context,?”moral”?refers?to?sexual?morality.?(See?ante,?maj.?opn.,?p.?1311.)?While?the?majority?opinion?discusses?the?point?only?very?briefly,?the?brevity?of?that?discussion?should?not?obscure?the?fact?that?it?is?well?established,?in?California?and?throughout?the?country,?that?a?defendant?charged?with?a?sex?offense?is?entitled?to?present?evidence?of?his?”good?moral?character.”?(See,?e.g.,?People?v.?Jones,?supra,?42?Cal.2d?219,?222;?People?v.?Castillo?(1935)?5?Cal.App.2d?194,?198?[42?P.2d?682];?Knorr?v.?State?(1987)?103?Nev.?604?[748?P.2d?1,?2-3?&?fn.?2];?State?v.?Miller?(Utah?1985)?709?P.2d?350,?354;?Thomas?v.?State?(Tex.App.?1984)?669?S.W.2d?420,?423;?State?v.?Davis?(1950)?231?N.C.?664?[58?S.E.2d?355];?State?v.?Baldanzo?(1930)?148?N.J.L.?498?[148?A.?725,?67?A.L.R.?1207].?See?generally?Note,?Have?You?Heard??Cross-Examination?of?a?Criminal?Defendant’s?Good?Character?Witness:?A?Proposal?for?Reform?(1976)?9?U.C.?Davis?L.Rev.?365,?368-369,?fn.?17;?Mauet,?Reputation?Evidence?in?Criminal?Trials?(1976)?58?Chi.B.Rec.?72,?72-73.)?As?these?numerous?authorities?demonstrate,?just?as?a?defendant?may?present?evidence?of?his?”honest”?character?to?raise?a?doubt?of?whether?he?committed?a?charged?embezzlement,?or?evidence?of?his?”peaceable”?or?”nonviolent”?character?to?counter?a?charge?of?assault,?a?defendant?who?is?charged?with?a?sex?offense?against?an?adult?or?a?child?has?always?been?permitted?to?present?evidence?of?his?”good?moral?character”?for?the?jury’s?[53?Cal.3d?1317]?consideration?in?determining?whether?there?is?a?reasonable?doubt?of?the?defendant’s?guilt.
As?to?the?second?point-the?kinds?of?evidence?that?a?defendant?may?produce?to?prove?that?he?or?she?possesses?such?a?character?trait-the?answer?is?clearly?provided?in?the?Law?Revision?Comment?accompanying?Evidence?Code?section?1102.?That?comment?explains:?”The?three?kinds?of?evidence?that?might?be?offered?to?prove?character?as?circumstantial?evidence?of?conduct?are:?(1)?evidence?as?to?reputation,?(2)?opinion?evidence?as?to?character,?and?(3)?evidence?of?specific?acts?indicating?character.”?(Cal.?Law?Revision?Com.?com.,?West’s?Ann.?Evid.?Code?(1966?ed.)???1102,?p.?13.)?With?respect?to?reputation?and?opinion?evidence,?the?comment?states:?”Reputation?evidence.?Reputation?evidence?is?the?ordinary?means?sanctioned?by?the?cases?for?proving?character?as?circumstantial?evidence?of?conduct.?[Citations.]?Both?Sections?1102?and?1103?codify?the?existing?law?permitting?character?to?be?proved?by?reputation.?[?]?Opinion?evidence.?There?is?recent?authority?for?the?admission?of?opinion?evidence?to?prove?character?as?circumstantial?evidence?of?conduct.?[Citation.]?However,?opinion?evidence?generally?has?been?held?inadmissible.?[Citations.]?[?]?The?general?rule?under?existing?law?excludes?the?most?reliable?form?of?character?evidence?and?admits?the?least?reliable.?The?opinions?of?those?whose?personal?intimacy?with?a?person?gives?them?firsthand?knowledge?of?that?person’s?character?are?a?far?more?reliable?indication?of?that?character?than?is?reputation,?which?is?little?more?than?accumulated?hearsay.?[Citation.]?The?danger?of?collateral?issues?seems?no?greater?than?that?inherent?in?reputation?evidence.?Accordingly,?both?Section?1102?and?Section?1103?permit?character?to?be?proved?by?opinion?evidence.”?(Ibid.)?With?respect?to?evidence?of?specific?acts,?on?the?other?hand,?the?comment?explains?that?section?1102?codifies?the?preexisting?rule?precluding?the?use?of?such?evidence?to?prove?the?defendant’s?character.?(29B?West’s?Ann.?Evid.?Code,???1102,?supra,?at?pp.?13-14.)?Thus,?as?this?comment?makes?clear,?Evidence?Code?section?1102?specifically?authorizes?a?defendant?to?establish?his?character?through?either?reputation?evidence?or?opinion?evidence,?and?the?opinion?evidence?which?the?comment?specifically?commends?as?the?”most?reliable?form?of?character?evidence”?is?”[t]he?opinions?of?those?whose?personal?intimacy?with?a?person?gives?them?firsthand?knowledge?of?that?person’s?character?….”?(29B?West’s?Ann.?Evid.?Code,???1102,?supra,?at?p.?13.)
When?defendant’s?offer?of?proof?is?viewed?against?the?background?of?these?general?principles,?it?becomes?clear,?in?my?view,?that?all?of?the?evidence?defendant?proposed?to?introduce?was?properly?admissible?as?good?character?[53?Cal.3d?1318]?evidence.?I?set?forth?the?offer?of?proof?in?its?entirety?in?a?footnote.fn.?1?Read?as?a?whole,?the?offer?indicates?that?defendant?intended?to?call?three?lay?witnesses?to?testify?as?to?his?good?moral?character?with?regard?to?sexual?matters,?sets?forth?each?witness’s?long?and?close?personal?relationship?with?the?defendant,?and?indicates?that?the?witnesses?were?prepared?to?testify?on?the?basis?of?their?own?opinion?and?of?their?knowledge?of?defendant’s?reputation?in?the?community.?As?we?have?seen,?this?is?precisely?the?kind?of?good?character?evidence?that?is?admissible?in?a?case?of?this?nature?under?Evidence?Code?section?1102.
Instead?of?reading?the?offer?of?proof?as?a?whole,?however,?the?majority?treat?it?as?if?it?were,?in?effect,?four?distinct?offers?of?proof-(1)?an?offer?to?prove?defendant’s?normal?or?nondeviant?sexuality?based?on?the?lay?witnesses’?observations?of?defendant?with?adult?women,?(2)?an?offer?to?prove?defendant’s?nonlewd?disposition?towards?children?based?on?the?lay?witnesses’?observations?of?defendant?with?children,?(3)?an?offer?to?have?the?lay?witnesses?testify?to?the?bare,?conclusory?opinion?that?defendant?has?a?high?moral?character,?and?(4)?an?offer?to?present?evidence?of?defendant’s?reputation?in?the?community?for?sexual?normalcy.?Viewing?the?offer?of?proof?in?this?disjointed?fashion,?the?majority?ultimately?conclude?that?the?trial?court?erred?in?excluding?items?(2),?(3),?and?(4),?but?properly?excluded?item?(1).?The?majority?defend?the?trial?court’s?exclusion?of?this?portion?of?the?[53?Cal.3d?1319]?proposed?testimony?on?the?ground?that?the?lay?opinion?testimony?encompassed?in?item?(1)?was?not?based?on?the?witnesses’?”own?perception”?as?required?by?Evidence?Code?section?800,?subdivision?(a).
In?my?view,?the?majority’s?conclusion?on?this?latter?point?is?flawed?on?a?number?of?grounds.?First,?as?already?indicated,?the?majority’s?basic?error?lies?in?the?failure?to?read?the?offer?of?proof?as?a?whole.?When?the?offer?of?proof?is?viewed?in?its?entirety,?it?is?clear?that?defendant?was?simply?proposing?to?call?three?close?friends?to?testify?that?he?was?a?person?of?good?moral?character?with?regard?to?sexual?matters,?i.e.,?that?it?would?have?been?out?of?character?for?him?to?have?committed?the?sexual?offense?with?which?he?was?charged.?Defendant?did?not?make?separate?offers?of?proof?with?regard?to?the?witnesses’?observations?of?defendant?with?adults?and?with?children;?rather,?the?single?offer?of?proof?was?intended?to?show?that?the?proposed?witnesses?were?close?and?longtime?friends?of?defendant?who?had?had?the?opportunity?personally?to?observe?him?in?many?social?settings,?both?with?adults?and?with?children,?and?that,?on?the?basis?of?those?observations,?the?witnesses?were?of?the?opinion?that?defendant’s?general?character?was?inconsistent?with?having?committed?the?sexual?offense?of?which?he?was?accused.
In?context,?it?seems?evident?that?the?proposed?testimony?by?the?lay?witnesses?that,?in?their?opinion,?defendant?was?not?”sexually?deviant,”?was?not?intended?as?a?clinical,?psychological?diagnosis;?the?witnesses,?after?all,?were?clearly?to?be?called?as?lay?witnesses.?Instead,?the?proposed?testimony,?reasonably?interpreted,?was?simply?another?way?of?phrasing?the?witnesses’?opinion?that?defendant?was?a?person?of?good?moral?character?with?regard?to?sexual?matters,?that?is,?a?person?whose?character?was?inconsistent?with?sexually?molesting?a?young?girl.?Because,?as?the?majority?recognize,?defendant?was?unquestionably?entitled?to?introduce?lay?opinion?testimony?as?to?his?good?or?high?moral?character,?I?conclude?that?all?of?the?testimony?embodied?in?the?offer?of?proof?was?properly?admissible?as?evidence?of?defendant’s?good?moral?character.
Second,?even?if?it?were?proper?to?view?this?portion?of?the?offer?of?proof?in?isolation,?the?record?clearly?belies?the?majority’s?conclusion?that?the?trial?court?could?properly?exclude?the?proposed?testimony?as?not?based?on?the?witnesses’?”own?perception.”?The?offer?of?proof?leaves?no?doubt?that?the?proposed?opinion?testimony?was?to?be?based?on?the?personal?perceptions?and?observations?of?each?of?the?witnesses.?Each?of?the?two?female?witnesses?was?a?personal?friend?of?the?defendant?who?had?dated?him?over?a?relatively?lengthy?period?of?time?and?had?had?an?intimate?sexual?relationship?with?him;?the?male?witness?was?also?a?close?personal?friend?who?had?known?defendant?over?many?years,?had?double-dated?with?him?on?many?occasions?and?knew?many?of?the?women?defendant?had?dated.?Each?of?the?witnesses?[53?Cal.3d?1320]?had?formed?her?or?his?opinion?as?to?defendant’s?character?on?the?basis?of?the?witness’s?personal?experience?with?defendant?in?different?settings?over?a?considerable?period?of?time.?Thus,?the?proposed?testimony?clearly?rested?on?the?”personal?perceptions”?of?the?witnesses.?None?of?the?cases?cited?by?the?majority?even?remotely?supports?their?contrary?conclusion.
Although?the?majority?purport?to?rely?on?the?theory?that?the?proposed?witnesses’?testimony?was?not?based?on?their?”own?perceptions,”?in?reality?the?majority’s?conclusion?appears?to?rest?on?the?quite?distinct?proposition?that?a?lay?witness?whose?opinion?of?a?defendant’s?character?is?based?only?on?observations?of?the?defendant’s?conduct?with?adults?cannot?properly?give?character?testimony?which?is?relevant?to?a?charge?that?the?defendant?engaged?in?deviant?sexual?conduct?with?a?child.?That?proposition,?however,?is?inconsistent?with?the?basic?principle?that?evidence?of?a?defendant’s?good?moral?character?is?admissible?when?a?defendant?is?charged?with?a?sex?offense?against?a?child.?Past?decisions?have?routinely?approved?the?admissibility?of?good?moral?character?testimony?in?such?cases?without?inquiring?whether?the?good?character?witnesses?had?personal?knowledge?of?the?defendant’s?conduct?with?children?as?well?as?with?adults.?(See,?e.g.,?People?v.?Wrigley?(1968)?69?Cal.2d?149,?153-154,?165-166?[70?Cal.Rptr.?116,?443?P.2d?580];?People?v.?Jones,?supra,?42?Cal.2d?219,?222;?People?v.?Anthony?(1921)?185?Cal.?152,?156?[196?P.?47];?People?v.?Hurd?(1970)?5?Cal.App.3d?865,?877-880?[85?Cal.Rptr.?718];?People?v.?Ray?(1960)?187?Cal.App.2d?182,?187?[9?Cal.Rptr.?678];?People?v.?Neal?(1948)?85?Cal.App.2d?765,?767?[194?P.2d?57].)?These?decisions?implicitly?recognize?that?it?would?be?improbable?or?unlikely?for?a?person?of?a?good?moral?character?to?commit?a?sex?offense?against?either?an?adult?or?a?child.?Thus,?just?as?a?witness?who?has?formed?an?opinion?as?to?a?banker’s?character?for?honesty?on?the?basis?of?his?or?her?observation?of?the?banker’s?handling?of?depositors’?funds?is?permitted?to?testify?to?the?banker’s?honest?character?if?the?banker?faces?a?charge?of?shoplifting?from?a?department?store,?so?may?a?witness?testify?to?a?defendant’s?general?good?moral?character?with?regard?to?sexual?matters?even?if?the?witness’s?opinion?does?not?rest?on?observations?of?the?defendant?under?the?same?specific?circumstances?as?the?alleged?offense.
To?be?sure,?the?prosecution?would?be?entitled?to?counter?such?evidence?with?the?kind?of?expert?testimony?that?the?prosecution?in?fact?presented?in?this?case,?advising?the?jury?that?a?person?who?has?normal?sexual?relationships?with?adults?may?commit?lewd?and?lascivious?acts?with?a?child.?But?the?fact?that?the?prosecution?may?be?able?to?present?reasons?for?the?jury?to?discount?the?probative?value?of?a?defendant’s?good?character?evidence?does?not?justify?the?trial?court?in?excluding?the?evidence?altogether.?The?majority?have?cited?no?case,?and?my?own?research?has?disclosed?none,?which?suggests?that?a?witness’s?testimony?as?to?a?defendant’s?good?moral?character?may?be?[53?Cal.3d?1321]?excluded?unless?the?witness?has?personal?knowledge?of?the?defendant’s?conduct?with?children.
Accordingly,?I?disagree?with?the?majority’s?conclusion?that?the?trial?court?properly?excluded?the?opinion?testimony?of?the?proffered?witnesses?insofar?as?it?rested?on?the?witnesses’?observations?of?defendant?with?adults,?rather?than?with?children.?In?my?view,?defendant?was?entitled?to?present?to?the?jury?all?of?the?good?character?evidence?that?he?offered?at?trial.
III
The?majority?correctly?conclude?that?the?trial?court?erred?in?excluding?the?testimony?of?the?two?female?witnesses?(1)?that?defendant?was?a?person?of?high?moral?character,?(2)?that?he?did?not?have?a?reputation?in?the?community?for?being?sexually?attracted?to?young?girls,?and?(3)?that,?based?on?their?observations?of?his?conduct?with?their?daughters,?he?is?not?a?person?who?is?disposed?to?lustful?or?lewd?conduct?with?children.?The?majority?go?on,?however,?to?hold?that?the?error?was?not?prejudicial.?I?disagree?with?this?holding,?even?if?the?majority?have?correctly?determined?the?extent?of?the?trial?court’s?error.
While?good?character?evidence?may?be?valuable?to?a?person?accused?of?any?crime,?past?California?cases?have?recognized?the?unique?importance?of?good?character?evidence?in?a?case?such?as?this,?in?which?there?is?no?physical?evidence?to?which?an?innocent?defendant?can?point?to?disprove?the?serious?child?molestation?charge?that?has?been?made?against?him?and?in?which?his?vehement?denial?of?the?accusation?can?easily?be?dismissed?by?the?jury?as?self-serving.
In?People?v.?Adams?(1939)?14?Cal.2d?154,?167-?168?[93?P.2d?146],?our?court?spoke?at?some?length?of?the?importance?of?scrupulously?protecting?the?rights?of?an?accused?in?a?case?of?this?nature,?explaining?in?part:?”In?such?a?situation,?the?only?defense?available,?ordinarily,?to?the?accused?is?his?own?denial?of?any?asserted?misconduct,?together?with?evidence?of?a?former?good?reputation;?otherwise,?he?is?utterly?defenseless?….?Errors?committed?either?by?the?prosecution?or?by?the?court?in?the?course?of?the?trial,?which?ordinarily?might?be?considered?trivial?and?as?of?no?material?consequence?from?a?standpoint?of?adverse?effect?upon?the?rights?of?a?defendant,?may?become?of?great?importance?when?committed?in?a?case?of?the?character?of?that?here?involved.”?(Italics?added.)
Similarly,?many?other?cases?have?recognized?that,?in?this?context,?evidence?of?an?accused’s?good?moral?character?may?be?the?only?evidence,?in?addition?to?his?denial?of?the?charges,?that?an?innocent?defendant?can?present?[53?Cal.3d?1322]?in?his?own?defense?(see,?e.g.,?People?v.?Anthony,?supra,?185?Cal.?152,?156;?People?v.?Neal,?supra,?85?Cal.App.2d?765,?771),?and?have?emphasized?that,?because?of?the?inherently?inflammatory?nature?of?an?accusation?of?child?molestation,?it?is?required?in?such?cases?”?’that?there?be?[a]?rigorous?insistence?upon?observance?of?the?rules?of?the?admission?of?evidence’?”?(People?v.?Jones,?supra,?42?Cal.2d?219,?226,?quoting?People?v.?Evans?(1952)?39?Cal.2d?242,?251?[246?P.2d?636])?and?that?”errors?which?in?other?context[s]?might?be?trifling?may?have?more?serious?import”?(People?v.?Burton?(1961)?55?Cal.2d?328,?341?[11?Cal.Rptr.?65,?359?P.2d?433]).?In?People?v.?Stanley?(1967)?67?Cal.2d?812,?820?[63?Cal.Rptr.?825,?433?P.2d?913],?our?court,?after?referring?to?most?of?the?above?authorities,?observed?that?”in?a?sex?case?where?the?only?witness?is?the?victim?and?his?story?is?totally?uncorroborated,?almost?any?error?is?serious?and?is?likely?to?be?prejudicial.”
Here,?the?trial?court’s?erroneous?ruling?completely?deprived?defendant?of?the?opportunity?to?present?a?potentially?crucial?portion?of?his?defense.?As?a?result?of?the?ruling,?the?jury?never?learned?that?defendant?had?a?good?reputation?in?the?community?with?regard?to?his?sexual?morality?or?that?defendant’s?close?friends,?who?had?the?opportunity?to?observe?him?in?numerous?social?settings?over?a?lengthy?period?of?time,?were?of?the?opinion?that?he?had?a?high?moral?character?which?was?inconsistent?with?molesting?a?young?girl.?Under?the?cases?cited?above,?it?appears?clear?that?the?trial?court’s?erroneous?exclusion?of?all?of?defendant’s?evidence?of?his?good?moral?character?is,?in?itself,?sufficiently?prejudicial?to?require?reversal.
Furthermore,?reversal?is?particularly?warranted?here?because?the?evidence?presented?at?trial?demonstrates?that?this?was?a?much?more?closely?balanced?case?than?the?majority?opinion?suggests.
To?begin?with,?the?circumstances?of?the?incident?as?described?by?the?victim,?while?perhaps?not?as?”weirdly?improbable”?as?the?testimony?described?in?People?v.?Castillo,?supra,?5?Cal.App.2d?194,?195-196,?198?(see?maj.?opn.,?ante,?p.?1312),?appear?unusual?even?within?the?universe?of?child?molestation?incidents.?By?all?accounts,?the?events?leading?up?to?the?alleged?molestation?of?Stephanie?were?entirely?innocent.?Defendant?had?met?Anita,?Stephanie’s?mother,?at?a?church?dance?and?had?dated?her?for?several?weeks?prior?to?the?day?of?the?alleged?incident.?On?the?day?in?question,?defendant?went?with?Anita?and?her?three?children?to?Toys-R-Us?to?buy?birthday?presents?for?Stephanie,?and?then?they?all?returned?to?defendant’s?house?to?play?with?the?new?gifts.?After?playing?with?the?toys?for?some?time,?all?five?went?into?defendant’s?bedroom,?where?defendant’s?only?television?set?was?located.?Defendant?and?Anita?lay?down?on?the?bed,?with?the?two?girls?on?either?side?of?them,?to?watch?television;?the?young?son?took?a?nap?on?the?floor?at?the?foot?of?the?bed.?After?a?half?hour?or?more,?the?young?boy?awoke?[53?Cal.3d?1323]?and?his?mother?got?up?from?the?bed?and?sat?with?him?for?several?minutes?at?the?foot?of?the?bed.?According?to?Stephanie’s?testimony,?it?was?at?this?point?that?defendant?allegedly?began?putting?his?hand?under?her?underwear,?while?Anita,?whom?defendant?was?dating,?was?still?in?the?room,?seated?only?a?few?feet?away?at?the?foot?of?the?bed.?Although?the?jury?certainly?was?entitled?to?believe?Stephanie’s?testimony?in?this?regard,?the?unusualness?of?the?alleged?conduct-a?molestation?committed?in?the?immediate?presence?of?the?victim’s?mother-could?reasonably?have?raised?at?least?some?question?in?the?minds?of?the?jury?as?to?the?accuracy?of?the?alleged?victim’s?testimony.
Second,?although?the?opinion?maintains?that?the?defense?did?not?”suggest?any?persuasive?motive?for?Stephanie?to?lie”?about?the?incident?with?defendant?(see?maj.?opn.,?ante,?p.?1312),?defendant’s?testimony?at?trial?did?suggest?such?a?motive.?Defendant?testified?that?the?incident?in?question?was?precipitated?after?Anita?left?the?bedroom?when?Stephanie?moved?her?arm?next?to?his?genitals?as?he?and?the?two?girls?were?lying?on?the?bed?watching?television.?Defendant?stated?that?he?removed?Stephanie’s?hand?and?told?her?not?to?touch?him?there,?indicating?that?her?mother?would?not?like?that?conduct.?He?testified?that?Stephanie?was?upset?by?the?reprimand,?left?the?room,?and?then?told?her?mother?that?defendant?had?improperly?touched?her.?Defendant?further?testified?that?when?Anita?confronted?him?about?the?incident,?he?described?Stephanie’s?conduct?to?her?and?she?responded,?”yeah,?I?can?believe?that.?She’s?pretty?aggressive?at?times.”?Although?the?jury?was?clearly?not?compelled?to?believe?defendant’s?testimony,?his?testimony?provides?at?least?a?plausible?explanation?of?why?Stephanie,?then?nine?years?of?age,?might?have?lied?about?the?incident.
Finally,?there?is?considerable?evidence?which?suggests?that?Anita?may?herself?not?have?believed?her?daughter’s?version?of?the?incident,?at?least?initially.?As?the?opinion?recognizes,?a?few?minutes?after?Stephanie?reported?the?alleged?molestation?to?Anita,?Anita?and?all?three?children,?including?Stephanie,?went?out?to?dinner?with?defendant,?and?then,?a?week?or?two?later,?Anita?went?on?another?date?with?defendant?in?the?course?of?which?the?two?engaged?in?sexual?intercourse.?While?it?is?possible?that?Anita?would?have?acted?in?this?manner?even?if?she?believed?defendant?had?molested?her?daughter,?her?conduct?at?least?lends?some?support?to?defendant’s?version?of?the?events.?In?addition,?Anita?never?reported?the?incident?to?the?police.?The?matter?did?not?come?to?light?until?Stephanie?related?the?incident?at?school?many?months?later,?after?a?presentation?to?her?class?by?a?visiting?sex-abuse-education?consultant.
In?light?of?all?the?evidence,?I?find?the?majority’s?harmless?error?determination?clearly?unsupportable.?As?the?authorities?discussed?earlier?make?clear,?even?when?there?is?no?other?evidence?to?support?a?defendant’s?denial?[53?Cal.3d?1324]?of?an?accusation?of?child?molestation,?evidence?that?the?defendant’s?character?is?of?such?a?nature?that?it?would?be?unlikely?for?him?to?have?committed?the?charged?offense?may?be?sufficient,?in?itself,?to?raise?a?reasonable?doubt?of?the?defendant’s?guilt.?(Michelson?v.?United?States,?supra,?335?U.S.?469,?476?[93?L.Ed.?168,?174].)?Particularly?when?considered?with?the?other?evidence?in?this?case,?the?erroneously?excluded?good?character?evidence?could?certainly?have?led?the?jury?to?conclude?that?the?prosecution?had?not?proven?defendant’s?guilt?beyond?a?reasonable?doubt.?In?a?case?of?this?nature,?where?the?precedents?teach?that?”almost?any?error?is?serious?and?is?likely?to?be?prejudicial”?(People?v.?Stanley,?supra,?67?Cal.2d?812,?820),?the?trial?court’s?erroneous?exclusion?of?a?potentially?crucial?component?of?defendant’s?defense?cannot?properly?be?found?harmless.
IV
Accordingly,?I?would?reverse?the?judgment?of?the?Court?of?Appeal,?and?direct?that?court?to?remand?this?case?to?the?superior?court?for?a?new?trial.
Panelli,?J.,?concurred.
FN?1.?”Q.?[By?defense?counsel.]?What?was?he?doing??You?said?he?was?touching?that?portion?of?your?pants??A.?Yes.?He?was-he?was?rubbing?on-around?the?edges?of?the?cuffs.
“Q.?So?he?would?be?touching?along?that?cuff?area?which?is?shown?in?that?photograph??A.?Yes.
“Q.?And?you’re?saying?that?was-A.?No.?He?would?be?sticking?his?hands?up?around?there.
“Q.?Underneath??A.?Yeah.
“Q.?And?would?he?be?touching?the?cuff?or?would?he?be?touching?you??A.?Me?and?the?cuff.
“Q.?And?so?it?would?be?somewhat?like?this.?How??A.?Yeah.?Well,?like?this.
“Q.?Touching?inside?of?the?cuff?or?touching?your?leg??A.?Touching?the?cuff?like?this?and?then?my?leg.
“Q.?And?moving?it?around?inside,?you’re?saying??A.?Yes.
“Q.?And-
“Ms.?Blake?[the?prosecutor]:?For?the?record?the?young?lady?raised?her?hand?and?moved?it?back?and?forth?from?her?right?to?her?left?side.
“The?Court:?All?right.”
At?the?time?of?trial?Stephanie?was?11?years?old?and?in?sixth?grade.
FN?2.?At?this?point?it?was?apparently?late?in?the?afternoon;?Anita?subsequently?testified?that?the?children?had?not?eaten?anything?since?breakfast,?and?they?were?hungry.
FN?3.?In?its?entirety,?defense?counsel’s?objection?was?as?follows:?”My?objection?to?this?kind?of?testimony?is?this.?We?have?a?rule?of?evidence?indicating?that?when?you?have?hearsay?evidence?coming?in?and?the?question?is?is?the?probative?value?outweighing?the?prejudicial?effect?of?that?kind?of?testimony.?In?examining?this?kind?of?testimony?we?have?really?not?scientific?evidence?but?studies?being?applied.?Meaning?on?one?case?this?happened,?on?another?case?this?happened,?this?case?happened.?And?so?the?responses?are?like?this.?All?we’re?doing?is?Nancy?reacted?this?way,?Jane?reacted?this?way.?Twelve?people?can?think?about?that?any?way.?All?they’re?doing?there?is?through?some?form?of?a?witness?which?has?some?form?of?scientific?credence?reinforcing?the?testimony?that?only?human?beings?can?be?child?molesters.?That’s?totally?unreliable.?And?that’s?one?of?the?criterias?which?you?determine?whether?you?have?this?kind?of?testimony?and?I?am?saying?this?is?unreliable?testimony,?it?is?not?any?scientific?studies?involved.?To?be?able?to?substantiate?taking?expert?testimony?in?this?field.”
FN?4.?Accord,?People?v.?Harlan?(1990)?222?Cal.App.3d?439,?449-450?[271?Cal.Rptr.?653];?People?v.?Stark?(1989)?213?Cal.App.3d?107,?115-117?[261?Cal.Rptr.?479];?People?v.?Bergschneider?(1989)?211?Cal.App.3d?144,?158-160?[259?Cal.Rptr.?219];?People?v.?Sanchez?(1989)?208?Cal.App.3d?721,?733-737?[256?Cal.Rptr.?446];?People?v.?Bothuel?(1988)?205?Cal.App.3d?581,?586-?589?[252?Cal.Rptr.?596];?People?v.?Luna?(1988)?204?Cal.App.3d?726,?734-737?[250?Cal.Rptr.?878].
FN?5.?The?following?colloquy?took?place?on?cross-?examination:
“Q.?[By?defense?counsel.]?Now,?you’ve?testified?in?answer?to?[the?prosecutor’s]?question?this?relationship?broke?off?because?you?knew?what?Stephanie?had?said?is?true,?isn’t?that?what?you?said??A.?Yes.
“Q.?Knowing?this?to?be?true?as?you?indicate?you?never?did?take?steps?to?go?to?the?police,?did?you??A.?No,?I?didn’t.
“Q.?You?understood?that?that?kind?of?action?was?illegal?and?a?criminal?act,?did?you?not??A.?I?don’t?think?I?fully?thought?of?all?that?was?involved.
“Q.?Did?you?understand?that?it?was?a?criminal?act?
“A.?Yes.
“Q.?You?didn’t?go?to?the?police?did?you??A.?No.
“Q.?It?was?only?when?confronted?by?an?outside?agency?that?you?began?to?carry?out?steps?with?regard?to?this?matter;?isn’t?that?correct??A.?Yes.
“Q.?And?that?was?roughly?a?year?and?a?half?later;?isn’t?that?correct??A.?A?year.
“Q.?Are?you?indicating?to?us?this?is?the?manner?in?how?you?reacted?when?you?believed?what?Stephanie?had?said??A.?Yes.”?(Italics?added.)
FN?6.?The?evidence?is?of?assistance?to?the?jury?even?though?the?mental?health?profession?has?not-or?not?yet-formally?labeled?it?as?a?”syndrome.”?(See?People?v.?Bowker,?supra,?203?Cal.App.3d?385,?392,?fn.?8.?[“An?expert?has?little?need?to?refer?to?the?syndrome?in?order?to?testify?that?a?particular?type?of?behavior?is?not?inconsistent?with?a?child?having?been?abused.”].)
FN?7.?The?relevance?of?the?evidence?is?not?undermined?by?the?fact?that?some?of?the?reasons?given?by?Officer?Miller?for?a?parent’s?failure?to?report?seem?not?to?apply?in?the?case?at?bar,?e.g.,?a?fear?of?breaking?up?a?marriage?or?harming?another?family?member.?Other?reasons?he?gave?may?well?apply?here,?e.g.,?a?sense?of?shame?or?failure?as?a?parent,?or?a?psychological?refusal?to?accept?the?fact?of?the?molestation.?The?latter,?indeed,?is?strongly?suggested?by?Anita’s?testimony?on?the?point.
FN?8.?”In?the?mind?of?the?public?a?child?molester?is?many?things:?a?desperate,?pitiful?individual,?such?as?Peter?Lorre?portrayed?in?the?1931?film?classic,?M;?a?dangerous,?anonymous?psychopath?who?snatches?unsuspecting?children?from?playgrounds?and?grabs?headlines?in?newspapers;?and?the?lecherous,?’dirty?old?man’?popularized?in?Hustler?magazine’s?’Chester?the?Molester’?cartoons.”?(de?Young,?The?Sexual?Victimization?of?Children?(1982)?p.?114.)
FN?9.?Thus?Groth?reports?that?80?percent?of?the?child?molesters?in?his?study?committed?their?first?offense?by?the?age?of?30,?and?all?had?done?so?before?reaching?40;?the?majority?knew?their?victims?at?least?casually;?the?majority?did?not?abuse?alcohol;?there?is?”no?significant?difference?in?intelligence?between?child?offenders?and?the?general?population”;?and?the?offenders?who?also?had?adult?sexual?relations?were?heterosexual.?(Groth,?supra,?p.?4.)
FN?10.?At?the?time?of?trial?defendant?was?36?years?old.
FN?11.?The?requirement?of?subdivision?(b)?of?section?800?is?not?at?issue?here.?The?purpose?of?that?subdivision?is?to?determine?when?a?lay?witness?may?supplement?or?illustrate?his?factual?testimony?by?drawing?therefrom?his?own?conclusion?or?inference,?i.e.,?his?opinion:?under?the?Evidence?Code?that?opinion?need?only?be?”helpful”-rather?than?necessary-to?understanding?the?witness’s?testimony.?(See?Tent.?Recommendation?and?Study?Relating?to?the?Uniform?Rules?of?Evidence,?art.?VII,?Expert?and?Other?Opinion?Testimony?(Mar.?1964)?6?Cal.?Law?Revision?Com.?Rep.?(1964)?pp.?931-935.)?But?under?section?1102?no?such?factual?testimony?is?permitted?in?any?event:?the?defendant’s?character?may?be?proved?only?by?”opinion”?or?”reputation.”?(Compare?Evid.?Code,???1103?[evidence?of?”specific?instances?of?conduct”?is?admissible?to?show?character?of?victim?in?similar?circumstances].)
FN?12.?The?contrast,?of?course,?is?with?opinion?testimony?by?an?expert,?which?may?be?based?on?information?furnished?to?the?expert?by?others,?provided?only?that?it?is?the?kind?of?information?on?which?experts?may?reasonably?rely.?(Evid.?Code,???801,?subd.?(b).)?As?succinctly?put?in?Manney?v.?Housing?Authority,?supra,?79?Cal.App.2d?453,?459-?460,?”For?a?nonexpert?to?be?competent?to?give?an?opinion?…?he?must?be?testifying?about?facts?that?he?has?personally?observed;?but?the?expert?…?may?give?his?opinion,?although?he?did?not?personally?observe?the?facts,?basing?his?opinion?upon?the?facts?testified?to?by?other?witnesses?[and]?put?to?him?in?the?form?of?hypothetical?questions.”
FN?13.?If,?in?a?child?molestation?case,?a?lay?character?witness?with?opportunity?to?observe?were?to?testify?only?that?in?his?or?her?opinion?the?defendant’s?sexual?behavior?with?adult?women?was?normal,?a?different?question?might?be?presented.?We?do?not?reach?that?question?in?the?case?at?bar,?because?like?the?trial?court?we?do?not?construe?the?offer?of?proof?to?present?such?testimony.
FN?14.?The?proffered?testimony?is?thus?distinguishable?from?the?hypothetical?suggested?by?the?trial?court,?viz.,?”it’s?like?saying,?well,?this?defendant?is?charged?with?robbing?a?bank?and?I?have?a?witness?who?saw?him?walk?past?a?bank?a?week?before?without?robbing?it.”
FN?15.?The?trial?court?also?excluded?this?testimony?under?Evidence?Code?section?352,?ruling?that?its?probative?value?would?be?outweighed?by?the?time?it?would?take?to?introduce?it?and?the?confusion?it?would?cause.?Although?the?trial?court?is?vested?with?wide?discretion?in?making?that?determination,?we?agree?with?defendant?that?its?discretion?was?abused?in?the?particular?circumstances?of?the?case?at?bar.?Here?the?trial?in?its?entirety?consumed?very?little?time:?the?People’s?complete?case-in-chief?took?less?than?four?hours,?and?defendant?put?on?his?entire?defense?in?less?than?ninety?minutes.?The?character?testimony?of?witnesses?Daybell?and?Tarkanian?was?very?brief,?and?there?is?no?reason?why?this?additional?character?testimony?could?not?have?been?likewise;?nor?was?extensive?cross-examination?likely,?because?defendant?had?no?criminal?record.?Second,?this?character?testimony?was?limited?to?the?main?issue?in?the?case,?i.e.,?whether?defendant?committed?the?lewd?act?that?Stephanie?described;?it?would?not?have?raised?any?new?question,?such?as,?for?example,?the?possibility?that?a?third?person?committed?the?act.?Its?admission?thus?would?not?have?created?a?”substantial?danger?…?of?confusing?the?issues”?within?the?meaning?of?Evidence?Code?section?352.
FN?16.?Defendant?contends?the?error?is?reversible?per?se?because?it?assertedly?deprived?him?of?certain?fundamental?rights?under?the?California?Constitution?and?because?its?effect?is?impossible?to?assess.?The?cases?on?which?he?relies?for?this?rule,?however,?reveal?its?inapplicability?to?the?error?here?committed.?In?People?v.?Joseph?(1983)?34?Cal.3d?936,?945-948?[196?Cal.Rptr.?339,?671?P.2d?843],?we?held?reversible?per?se?the?trial?court’s?erroneous?denial?of?a?competent?defendant’s?motion?to?represent?himself?in?a?capital?case.?In?People?v.?Bigelow?(1984)?37?Cal.3d?731,?744-746?[209?Cal.Rptr.?328,?691?P.2d?994,?64?A.L.R.4th?723],?also?a?capital?case,?we?held?reversible?per?se?the?trial?court’s?erroneous?failure?to?exercise?its?discretion?to?appoint?advisory?counsel?to?assist?a?defendant?acting?in?propria?persona?who?had?shown?himself?incompetent?to?serve?as?his?own?attorney.?The?present?evidentiary?error?in?excluding?certain?additional?items?of?character?testimony?does?not?remotely?approach?the?gravity?of?such?denials?of?the?fundamental?right?to?counsel,?nor?is?its?effect?impossible?to?assess.
FN?1.?Defendant’s?offer?of?proof?stated:?”Defendant?has?made?an?offer?of?proof?regarding?the?introduction?of?character?witnesses?pursuant?to?Evidence?Code,?section?1102.?These?witnesses?will?testify?in?general?as?follows:
“1.?That?they?know?the?defendant.?Two?of?the?witnesses?are?women?and?have?dated?him?for?period?[sic]?of?time?of?approximately?six?months?but?continued?their?friendship?with?him?after?the?dating?took?place.?The?third?witness?is?a?college?friend?who?double?dated?with?him?and?has?gone?on?vacations?with?defendant.
“(a)?The?women?character?witnesses?can?testify?that?they?have?dated?the?defendant?and?in?the?course?of?their?relationship?became?intimate?sexually.?That?as?a?result?of?such?occasions?and?other?intimate?moments,?it?is?their?opinions?[sic]?based?upon?their?personal?perceptions,?that?defendant?is?not?what?may?be?referred?to?as?’sexually?deviant’,?i.e.,?a?person?whose?sexual?behavior?is?out?of?the?ordinary,?in?that?his?sexual?drives?appeared?normal?and?ordinary.?In?their?opinion,?based?upon?their?intimate?contact?with?defendant,?the?defendant?is?a?person?of?high?moral?character.
“In?addition,?the?women,?during?the?course?of?their?contact?with?defendant?came?into?contact?with?persons?knowing?the?defendant?and?came?to?know?his?reputations?[sic]?in?his?community?for?normalcy?in?his?sexual?tastes.
“(b)?That?each?woman?also?has?a?daughter?and?during?the?course?of?their?relationship,?as?a?result?of?observations?of?defendant’s?contacts?with?their?children,?they?observed?no?inordinate?behavior?by?defendant?or?by?their?children.?As?a?result,?it?is?their?opinions?[sic],?based?upon?personal?perceptions,?that?defendant?is?not?a?person?of?lustful?or?lewd?conduct?with?children.
“(c)?The?third?witness?is?a?college?friend?of?defendant.?They?attended?Fresno?State?together.?They?became?good?friends?and?many?times?double?dated.?He?has?met?many?of?the?women?defendant?dated.?That?as?a?result?of?observations?of?his?conduct?with?the?women,?then?and?thereafter,?it?is?his?opinion?based?upon?personal?perceptions,?that?defendant?is?not?a?sexual?deviant?and?is?a?person?of?normal?heterosexual?drives.”