 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Banks1/24/2003
ntradicted, and amply supported the jury's verdict on that count. The jury demonstrated that it was able to carefully consider the evidence presented and that it was not unduly swayed by propensity evidence, since it was unable to reach a verdict on the assault and criminal threats charges and indicated that it was leaning 11 to one for acquittal of the assault charge. Any error in the giving of CALJIC No. 2.50.02 would be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24.)
III. Evidence of the officer's observations of Jackson's injuries was properly admitted.
Prior to trial, relying on Evidence Code section 352, appellant attempted to exclude evidence of Mastick's observations of Jackson's bruises and lacerations, and evidence that Jackson told Mastick she believed appellant's threat that he would snap her neck because of his prior infliction of physical abuse during a domestic dispute. The prosecutor argued that the evidence was relevant to show a credible threat and the victim's sustained fear to establish the criminal threats charge, and that it was not unduly prejudicial. Defense counsel argued that the evidence had limited probative value and was highly prejudicial, and evidence of another crime would confuse the jurors. The trial court denied appellant's request to exclude the evidence, stating that the earlier attack on Jackson was a recent, similar, single event and finding that the probative value outweighed the danger of undue prejudice.
The prosecutor subsequently informed the trial court that Jackson was unavailable to testify and that she therefore intended to introduce Jackson's statement to Mastick pursuant to Evidence Code section 1370. Defense counsel objected to evidence of Jackson's statement on grounds relating to Evidence Code section 1370, and objected to evidence of the officer's observations of the injuries on relevance grounds, arguing that the injuries were not the result of the charged incident. The trial court reserved ruling until the testimony was heard. During Mastick's testimony, it ruled that the evidence of Jackson's statement to Mastick was inadmissible for lack of a proper foundation under Evidence Code section 1370. At that time, defense counsel objected that the evidence of Jackson's injuries was irrelevant and misleading, since the injuries had been inflicted during an unreported incident days before the charged offenses. The trial court indicated that the evidence appeared to be admissible as circumstantial evidence that might tend to prove or disprove the charge of making criminal threats, and when the prosecutor asked Mastick about his observations, the court overruled the relevancy objection.
Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence of Jackson's bruises and lacerations because it was irrelevant and because the prejudicial effect of the evidence significantly outweighed any slight probative value. This claim lacks merit.
Relevant evidence is that which has "any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action." (Evid. Code, § 210.) As the prosecution argued, and the trial court determined, the evidence of Jackson's prior injuries was relevant to the criminal threats charge to establish the requisite element that she suffered sustained fear based on a reasonable belief the threat would be carried out. (See People v. Solis (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1002, 1023-1024.) It was thus properly admitted over the relevancy objection.
As respondent points out, defense counsel did not renew his Evidence Code section 352 objection after the trial court made its ruling on
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|