Case Summary

p0001 When it is alleged that defendant assaulted a particular person, evidence of prior assaults by defendant on the same person are admissible; evidence that otherwise would be hearsay was admitted to establish the declarant's state of mind and as spontaneous utterances; a statement contained in an attorney's opening statement to the effect that his client offered to take a lie detector test opened the door to a question on cross examination regarding the results of the lie detector test, and although the question was improper and the answer inadmissible, the trial court's instruction that the jury was to disregard it was sufficient to correct any error; prior testimony of an unavailable witness who testified for the prosecution at a criminal trial against a defendant now being sued for damages in connection with the incident that was the basis of the criminal trial is not admissible; testimony by an expert who opined that DNA evidence could have been contaminated was properly excluded as speculative; before a verdict was reached removal of a juror who was guilty of juror misconduct and replacement of the juror with an alternate was sufficient to prevent prejudice.

RUFO v SIMPSON (OJ Simpson) 86 CA4 573 [See: EvC 1200 etseq; 1240, 351.1, 1291, 1292, 352; CCP 233; People v Cartier 54 C2 300; People v Zack 184 CA3 409; People v Hoover 77 CA4 1020; People v Hughey 194 CA3 1383; People v Morris 53 C3 152; People v Parrella 158 CA2 140; Hasson v Ford 32 C3 388; Garden Grove v Hendler 63 C2 141]