Ramirez v. BB & BB Management Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that article I, section 18(c)’s legal relevance test includes “[t]he determination of how much and what kind of probative value particular propensity evidence may have”
• holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence in part because there were no eyewitness accounts and “[n]o other scientific, forensic, medical, or psychological witness was available”
• noting that “it is safe to say a general prohibition against the use of propensity evidence in criminal cases has been firmly engrained in American jurisprudence throughout much of the nation’s history”
• finding that to show evidence is probative, the evidence “must tend to show the defendant actually had a propensity to commit the charged crime at the time it is alleged to have occurred.”
• finding evidence of prior criminal acts probative of charged acts when they are highly similar and close in time
• reviewing several federal circuit court cases that found the admission of certain propensity evidence in cases concerning sexual assault is not unconstitutional because it is tempered by the probative-versus-prejudicial balancing test

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).