WPC =r 7^B~_AV4Co9tVK 6qlR#{VJ fNKt!ӿiڜ"{GڅJ 6}XHmplvOf;=-]+/Gm&OwyK;-k?}N/436[gdX]t+ȋ\.KmZVʸf q xê~*qNInB&**èSيAO4}Nw@  m ##!^ @ 0E B B*(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(]$x  g:\wpwin60\template\pleading.wpt^1'0\TE3|x<( 9Z &Courier Regular EEEUPleading Paper - With button to modify pleading format  ' JPARKE0JPARKE .   HP LaserJet 5 (Copy 1),,,,0H03 6 ̯,x   d     d xXA)) 3^dE01AA() 3^^dEt&1A  , EE 1  , EE 2  , EE 3  , EE 4  , EE 5  , EE 6  , EE 7  , EE 8  , EE 9  ,  10  ,  11  ,  12  ,  13  ,  14  ,  15  ,  16  ,  17  ,  18  ,  19  ,  20  ,  21  ,  22  ,  23  ,  24  ,  25  ,  26  ,  27  ,  28(3̯$ !x     d  d&0 d d !x    _ 8XXdd8 XXXX@ GSUPERIORCOURTOFCALIFORNIA,COUNTYOF 6 THEPEOPLEOFTHESTATEOF    ) 8 CaseNo.  CALIFORNIA,    0     ) 8  B     (     0     ) 8   U    (  Plaintiff,    ) 8 EXCLUDINGDEFENDANT'S      (     0     ) 8 ADULTSEXUALCONDUCTWITH      vs. (     0     ) 8 OTHERADULTS N      (     0     ) 8   a     (     0     ) 8 Date:  $     (     0     ) 8 Time:      (  Defendant.    ) 8 Dept: Z  ___________________________________)    Thedefensemovesforaprotectiveorderthat:  1.Theprosecutionnotbeallowedtointroduceanyevidenceofadultwithadultsexualconductofthedefendant.  2.Theprosecutionnotbeallowedtoquestionthedefendant(ifshe/heԀelectstotestify)concerninghis/herԀsexualconductwithotheradult(s).Thisincludes,butisnotlimitedtoadultsexualpreferencewithadults,adultswithadulttypesofsexualacts,andadultwithadultsexualfrequencies.  3.Theprosecutionnotbeallowedtoquestionthedefendant'sspouseifshe/heԀtestifiesconcerningtheiradultsexualconduct.@  /G @@  /GI #;) @S S GDEFENDANT'SNONCRIMINALSEXUALCONTACTSWITHOTHER@ GADULTSAREIRRELEVANTTOTHEPRESENTCHARGES.  4&!,   Onlyrelevantevidenceisadmissibleattrial.(EvidenceCode350.)"Relevantevidence"meanstestimonyorphysicalobjects,includingevidencebearingonthecredibilityofawitnessorhearsaydeclarant,havinganytendencyinreasontoproveor L,'4 disproveanydisputedfactthatisofconsequencetothedeterminationofanaction.(EvidenceCode210; Peoplevs. 6 _Scheid_ (1997)16Cal.4th1.)Acourthasnodiscretiontoadmit   irrelevantevidence.( Peoplevs._Crittenden_ (1994)9Cal.4th83, B  132.)Evidencewhichproducesonlyspeculativeinferencesisirrelevantevidence.( Peoplevs.DeLaPlane (1979)88Cal.App.3d N   223,242.)Whetherornotevidenceisrelevantisadecisionwithinthetrialcourt'sdiscretion.( Peoplevs.VonVillas (1992) Z  10Cal.App.4th201,249.)Thetrialcourtabusesitsdiscretioninadmittingevidencewhenitcanbeshownunderallthecircumstancesthatitexceededtheboundsofreason.( Peoplevs.DeJesus (1995) < 38Cal.App.4th1,32.)  In Peoplevs.Kelley (1967)66C2d232(disapprovedonanother H ground  ,  ,Peoplev.Alcala(1984)36Cal.3d604,_624.)[    ,_Ԁdecidedwhen ~ oralcopulationandanalsexbetweenconsentingadultswasanillegalact,thedefendantwaschargedwithhavingorallycopulatedandmasturbatedaneightyearoldboy.Overobjection,theprosecutionintroducedevidencethattwentyfouryearsbeforedefendantwasorallycopulatedbyamaleandthathecommittedactsoforalcopulationwithhisfirstandsecondwife.TheCaliforniaSupremeCourtreversedtheconvictionbecauseoftheerroneousadmissionintoevidenceofthepriorsexualactsbetweenconsentingadults:8   ( "Itisnotthelawthatotheroffenses ##    ( areadmissiblewheneveraspecificintent   ( isrequiredtobeproved.Sucharule   ( shouldparticularlybeavoidedin288cases   ( whereevidencethattheyweredonewith   ( thespecificintentofarousingsexual   ( desires.Moreover,inthepresentcase, L,'4    ( theotheroffenseshereinvolvedarenot,   ( asrequiredby_Coltrin_andasexistedin L,'4    ( Malloyand_Honaker_,'ofasimilarnature'     ( tothecrimecharged.Theprioroffenses L,'4    ( werecommittedwithconsentingadultsand   ( withpersonsquitedissimilartothe   ( prosecutingwitnessandinvolveddistinctly   ( differentconductonthepartofthe   ( defendant...andtheexperiencewithhis   ( wives,occurringbetweenconsentingadults   ( oftheoppositesexintheprivacyofthe   ( marriagebed,certainlycannotberelevant   ( enoughtotheseductionofan8yearold   ( boytooutweighitsprejudicialeffectupon   ( thejury."( Id. ,atp.244245.) N   Thisrulingisstrongertodayinlightofthedecriminalizationofalltypesofsexbetweenconsentingadults.  In1978theCaliforniaSupremeCourtreaffirmeditsrulingthatadultwithadultsexualactsareinadmissibleinchildmolestcasesbecausethepersonsarequitedissimilar.See Peoplevs. < Thomas (1978)20C3d457at466(overruledonothergroundsin r Peoplev._Tassell_(1984)36Cal.3d77,8788ndandfn._8)f:_ H 8  "Ordinarily,evidenceofacommondesignorplanwouldbeareitherontheissueofthedefendant'sidentityastheperpetratorofthechargedoffense,orthedefendant'sintenttocommitthatoffense... ## 8  OurdecisionsinCramerandKelleyarehelpfulinpinpointingtherationaleunderlyingthecommondesignorplanexception.Bothcasesrecognizethatalthoughallegedsexoffensescommittedwithpersonsotherthantheprosecutingwitnessareoftenunreliableanddifficulttoprove,neverthelesssuchevidenceisadmissibletoshowacommondesignorplanwheretheprioroffenses(1)arenottooremoteintime,(2)are !& similartotheoffensescharged,and(3)arecommitted e"' uponpersonssimilartotheprosecutingwitness..." (#x( ( Id. ,atp.465,emphasisadded.)#;)##   Similarly,in UnitedStatesvs.Gillespie 852F2d475(9th q% + Cir.1988)thedefendantwaschargedwithchildmolestation.Theprosecutionintroducedevidencethatthedefendant(anadult)andhisadoptivefather(anadult)hadahomosexualrelationship.Theprosecutionintroducedtheevidenceonthetheorythatitshowed +&3 appellant'smotive,intent,plananddesigntobringthechildvictimintotheU.S.formolestationpurposes.Thedefendant'sconvictionwasreversedbecauseoftheintroductionofevidenceofhishomosexualcontactwithanotheradult.Thecourtexplained:8  "Theevidenceneitherprovednordisprovedthattheappellantmolestedthechild.Itwasofferedtoshowthatthemendifferedfromwhattheyheldthemselvesouttobe,butnoneofthetestimonyabouttheirsexualrelationshiphelpedthetrieroffactdecidewhethertheappellantwasguiltyoftheoffense.( Id. ,atp.478.) a ##   Inshort,Defendant'snoncriminalsexualcontactswithotheradultsarenotrelevanttoestablishthatcommittedthechargedoffense(s)Ԁandarethereforeinadmissible.@.G II  )y @o o G THEACCIDENTALMENTIONBYAWITNESSOFTHE  @# # GDEFENDANT'SSEXUALCONTACTSWITHADULTS@3 3 GDOESNOTOPENTHEDOORTOFURTHEREVIDENCE@'GONTHATSUBJECT.  H   Ifanywitnessaccidentallymentionsthedefendant'ssexualactivitieswithadults,thedoortofurtherevidenceonthatsubjecthasnot"opened"."Byallowingobjectionableevidencetogoinwithoutobjection,thenonobjectingpartygainsnorighttotheadmissionofrelatedoradditionalotherwiseinadmissibletestimony.Thesocalled'openthedoor'or'openthegates'argumentisa'popularfallacy.'(CitationOmitted.)"( Peoplevs. e"' _Gambos_ (1970)5Cal.App.3d187; Peoplevs.Williams (1989)213 #;) Cal.App.3d1186,1189,fn.1; Peoplevs.Valentine (1988)207 q% + Cal.App.3d697,705[government'spurportedimpeachmentofdefendantwasanimproperrebuttaltoacollateralmatterimproperlyraisedoncrossexamination].)̀ +&3 @*G CONCLUSION    Adultsarenot"personssimilartotheprosecutingwitness" 6 inachildmolestcase,thusallevidenceofDefendant'snoncriminalsexualconductwithadultsshouldbeexcludedasirrelevant.  Dated:   (     0   Respectfullysubmitted,   (     0   _____________________________   (     0      (     0   AttorneyforDefendant