WPC X?!x*_FXzdeHp+>U an4ZML`5 6ޒr8 ;q}2&9%a N'H}4!wU h 8]xNd{!mU Tzvm&Wp}iqs؅_1NӛQl9zlH4W )yoitChX[O4'Iѽ$ E[s PԪZfrRRKeI@rǼ%vh9>=xT Pӑy`^|l +!w%m½f D^I_qՑ*tM5F^bY CyI xt ){ͽ .qlVIN)<1z|9lq7M{"_0Yc7ɃJLAlo'IX0'YY#UN % 0 U6} N  0gEw^ )45IX mZU qU> B B*HP LaserJet 5,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(Z)$USUS.,  <6X9`(Courier New  9,USUS., d   d (,(#,(#(  AX )1dE01AAW )1qdE#1A1  2 8 3  4 H  5   6 X   7  0  8 h  9 @  10 x  11 P 12  13 ` 14  15  p 16  17 0  18 " 19 @ $ 20 !& 21 P#( 22 $( * 23 `&!, 24 '8#. 25 p)$0 26 *H&2 27 ,'4 28(39$ )!USUS.,     d U. ,z.:i+003|xUH6X`(<( 9Z &Courier Regular d&0 d d )!USUS.,    _ XXXXCLANCYLITIGATIONGROUP   PatrickE.Clancy,SBN60805 t Dr.DemosthenesLorandos,SBN177644 8 1600S.MainSt.,Suite185 L WalnutCreek,CA94596  Tel:(925)2564600  eFax:(888)8025089#XXXX# H  XXXXBOXXAttorneysforDefendant   #XXBOi##XXXXJ#XXXX @SUPERIORCOURTOFCALIFORNIA,COUNTYOF_______  l  THEPEOPLEOFTHESTATEOF    ) p CaseNo. h  CALIFORNIA,    h     ) p  ,|     `     h     ) p  @     `  Plaintiff,    ) p EXCLUDINGEVIDENCEOF      `     h     ) p DEFENDANT'SCHARACTERFOR x    vs. `     h     ) p THEUSEOFDRUGSOR < ALCOHOL P    `     h     ) p      `  ,   h     ) p Date:     `     h     ) p Time: L    `  Defendant.    ) p Dept: ` ___________________________________)  $ @*    Thedefensemovesforaprotectiveorderthat: 4   1.Theprosecutionnotaskanyquestionsofanywitnesses l concerningdefendant'sdrinkinghabitsorpriornarcoticsusage. D!   2.Anyquestionsaskedbytheprosecutionconcerningthe |# consumptionofalcoholicbeveragesoringestionofnarcotic !T% substancesbelimitedtothe_day[s_]ofthealleged_act[s_]. "'   3.Theprosecutioninstructtheprosecutionwitnessesnot $d) tovolunteerinformationconcerningdefendant'sdrinkinghabits % + oruseofnarcotics. $'t"- ////// (#/ ////// 4*%1 ////// + '3 @* I  D-(5 _@88) LAW   @! CHARACTEREVIDENCE  8   Characterevidenceisinadmissibletoprovethatthe  defendantactedinconformitywiththatcharacter.EvidenceCode H  1101provides:   8  "ExceptasprovidedinthissectionandinSections X   1102and1103,evidenceofaperson'scharacterora  l  traitofhisorhercharacter(whetherintheformof  0  anopinion,evidenceorreputation,orevidenceof   specificinstancesofhisorherconduct)is h  inadmissiblewhenofferedtoprovehisorherconduct ,|  onaspecificoccasion.@    8  (b)Nothinginthissectionprohibitstheadmissionof   evidencethatapersoncommittedacrime,civilwrong, x  orotheractwhenrelevanttoprovesomefact(suchas < motive,opportunity,intent,preparation,plan, P knowledge,identity,absenceofmistakeoraccident,or  whetheradefendantinaprosecutionforanunlawful  sexualactorattemptedunlawfulsexualactdidnot L reasonablyandingoodfaithbelievethatthevictim ` consented)otherthanhisorherdispositiontocommit $ suchanact.   8  (c)Nothinginthissectionaffectstheadmissibility \ ofevidenceofferedtosupportorattackthe  p credibilityofawitness."4   @* @* @tt)II  D!  GENERALDRINKINGHABITSAREINADMISSIBLETO |# IMPEACHWITNESSONLYEVIDENCEOFDRINKING @ $ ONTHEDAYINQUESTIONONLYISALLOWED.  !T%   Inthecaseof Peoplevs.Stanley (1962)206CA2d795,799 "' thecourtruledthatevidenceofdrinkinghabitswasinadmissible $d) toimpeachawitness.Theonlyadmissibleevidencewouldbe % + whetherthewitnesswasdrinkingonthedayinquestion. $'t"- 8  "Theauthoritiesestablishthatdrunkennesson (#/ occasionspriorandsubsequenttotheoneinvolvedin p)$0 thecasedoesnotamounttocompetentimpeachment 4*%1 evidence."*H&2   8  "IIIWigmoreonEvidence(ThirdEd.)section933,pages ,'4 480481:`Intoxication,ifitisofsuchadegreeasto D-(5 deservethename,involvesanumbingofthefaculties .X)6 soastoaffectthecapacitytoobserve,torecollect,  ortocommunicate;andisthereforeadmissibleto t impeach***Butageneralhabitofintemperancetellsus 8 nothingofthewitnessestestimonialincapacityexcept L asitindicatesactualintoxicationatthetimeofthe  eventobservedorthetimeoftestifying;andhence,  sinceinitsbearinguponmoralcharacteritdoesnot H  involvetheveracitytrait(ante,Sec.923),itwill  \ usuallynotbeadmissible.'McCormickonEvidence,   Sec.45,page98:'Oneformofabnormalityisthatof    beingundertheinfluenceofdrugsordrink.Ifthe X   witnesswasundersuchinfluenceatthetimeofthe  l  happeningswhichhereportsinhistestimonyorisso  0  atthetimehetestifies,thisofcourseisprovable,   oncrossorbyextrinsicevidence,toimpeach. h  Habitualaddictionstandsdifferently.Undera ,|  traditionarisingperhapswhenthreebottlemenwere @  morefrequentlyencountered,itisgenerallyheldthat   themerefactofchronicalcoholismisnotprovableon x  credibility." Peoplevs.Stanley (1962)206CA2d795, < 797.P     Thuswhenintemperanceisnotinissueitisimproperto  introduceevidenceofhabitualalcoholconsumptionofthewitness ` ordefendant. Springervs.Reimers (1970)4CA3d325,84  Cal.Rptr.486.  p @* V  @  NARCOTICUSAGEINADMISSIBLETOIMPEACH 0  @WITNESSUSEONDAYINQUESTIONONLYISALLOWED  D!   Similarly,astonarcotics,theiruseremoteintimefrom |# theoffenseatissueforimpeachmentpurposesisnotallowed. !T%  Peoplevs.Ashford (1968)265Cal.App.2d673,679.Thissois "' becausesuchremoteintimeuseisnotrelevanttoestablishthat $d) awitness'sperceptionrecordation,recollectionorrecallfor % + theeventinquestionwastherebyaffected,andawitnesscannot $'t"- beimpeachedbyspecificactsofmisconductotherthanafelony (#/ conviction.( Id. ,atp.679; Peoplevs.Buono (1961)191 4*%1 Cal.App.2d203,229233.)   + '3   In Peoplevs.Pargo (1966)241Cal.App.2d594,the_defendant D-(5 wasaccusedofarobberyinNovember1964.Theprosecution  introducedevidenceofamedicalexaminationfornarcoticsusage 8 inFebruary,1964andelicitedtestimonythatthedefendantwasa  registerednarcoticsoffenderasofMay,1965.Hethusbracketed H  theperiodofthecrimefromwhichaninferencecouldbedrawn   thatthedefendantwasusingdrugsatornearthetimeofthe X   crimetherebyimpeachinghisabilitytorecollectandperceive  0  eventsofthattimeperiod.Thedefendanttestifiedhe h  rememberedbeingelsewhereonthenightofthecrime. @    Theconvictionin _Pargo_ wasreversedbecauseofthelackof x  experttestimonyoftheeffectupontestimonialcapacityof,use P oraddictiontonarcoticsatatime"soseeminglyremotefromany  relevantdate"asthetimeofthedoctor'sexamination. `   Thusevidenceofpasthabitualuseofnarcoticsremoteto  theeventsattrialisinadmissible"toimpeachperceptionor  p memoryunlessthereisexperttestimonyontheprobableeffectof  suchuseonthosefaculties."( Peoplevs._Balderas_ (1985)41 0  Cal.3d144,191.) "   Improperlyadmittedevidenceofadefendant'spastdruguse @ $ wasfoundhighlyprejudicialandcauseforreversalin Peoplevs. !& Valentine (1988)207_Cal.App_.3d697,705706,eventhougha P#( limitinginstructionwasgiven. $( * @% CONCLUSION  `&!,   Theonlyrelevanceofalcoholordruguseisforimpeachment '8#. ormotivationevidence,andthenonlyonthedateofthealleged p)$0 offense. *H&2   Thedefensewillnotintroducecharacterevidenceasto ,'4 defendant'sdrinkinghabitsorpriornarcoticusageandtherefore .X)6 theprosecutioncannot.Thedefensewillnotraiseanyissueof  defense,suchasdiminishedcapacityduetoinvoluntary 8 intoxication,andtherefore,alcoholuseanddruguseisnot  relevantandnotinissue. H    Dated:      `     h Respectfullysubmitted, X      `     h _____________________________ h     `     h AttorneyforDefendant#XXXX #