 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Casillas6/21/2004
aphs of the defendant engaged in sexual intercourse with a woman. Defendant did not object when the victim testified, but later argued to the court that the testimony "opened the door," allowing defendant to introduce evidence of the victim's character traits that arguably may have contributed to the defendant's acts. When the court disagreed, defendant asked the court to strike the victim's testimony. The court denied the request as untimely. It did, however, admonish the jurors that they were not to consider evidence of the pages from the magazine and the photographs for purposes of deciding the defendant's character, but only for the purpose of explaining the victim's actions.
Defendant contends that the failure to strike the testimony was prejudicial error, requiring reversal.
The evidence was at least marginally relevant to show that the decision to terminate defendant was not arbitrary and therefore not unduly provoking. In any event, we presume that the jury followed the court's admonition, and did not consider the evidence for an improper purpose. (People v. Yeoman (2003) 31 Cal.4th 93, 139, recognizing "the presumption that jurors understand and follow instructions as ` he critical assumption underlying our constitutional system of trial by jury.' [Citations.]") (Ibid.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur:
MARCHIANO, P.J.
SWAGER, J.
Page 1 2 3 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|