 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Tiebout5/30/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Joseph Alan Tiebout entered guilty pleas to driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)) and being under the influence of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a)). Thereafter, a jury convicted him of transporting cocaine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a).) In a bifurcated hearing, Tiebout admitted two prior strikes (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 668, 1170.12) and serving two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The court struck one prior strike (§ 1385) and sentenced him to prison for 10 years: double the four-year middle term for transporting cocaine with a prior strike, enhanced by two 1-year terms for the prior prison terms. It imposed concurrent terms on the remaining convictions. Tiebout contends the trial court erred in admitting evidence he was under the influence when arrested.
FACTS
At approximately 2:45 a.m. on May 20, 2000, after stopping a car Tiebout was driving, officers found cocaine base on the floorboard of the car. A test of Tiebout's blood after his arrest revealed cocaine base. Before trial, the court denied Tiebout's motion to exclude evidence he was under the influence when arrested.
DISCUSSION
Evidence of misdeeds or crimes committed by the defendant other than the one for which he is on trial is inadmissible if its purpose is to establish a propensity for criminal conduct. (Evid. Code, § 1101, subd. (a).) Such evidence is admissible only when relevant to prove some other fact in issue, such as motive, means, identity, intent, knowledge, or common design or plan. (Evid. Code, § 1101, subd. (b).) Evidence of other crimes should be " 'scrutinized with great care,' " because it can be highly inflammatory and prejudicial. (People v. Thompson (1980) 27 Cal.3d 303, 314.)
We must consider three factors when reviewing the admission of evidence of other offenses: (1) the materiality of the facts sought to be proved or disproved; (2) the probative value of the other crime evidence to prove or disprove the facts and; (3) the existence of any rule or policy requiring the exclusion of relevant evidence. (People v. Thompson, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 313.) To be material, the prior crime must be relevant to some ultimate fact in dispute. (People v. Tassell (1984) 36 Cal.3d 77, 83-89, overruled on other grounds in People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380, 401.)
To convict a defendant of possessing a controlled substance, the prosecution must prove the accused exercised dominion and control over the contraband, had knowledge of its presence, and had knowledge the material was a narcotic. (People v. Williams (1971) 5 Cal.3d 211, 215.)
Before trial, defense counsel moved to exclude pursuant to Evidence Code sections 352 and 1101, subdivision (b), evidence that Tiebout was intoxicated when arrested. The court denied the motion, finding that the evidence was admissible to show Tiebout knew drugs were under the driver's seat of the car he was driving and to show he had a motive for carrying around the cocaine base. The court found the evidence of minimal prejudice in showing Tiebout's bad character. It instructed the jury it could consider evidence of cocaine base in Tiebout's blood only for the purpose of showing knowledge and motive, and the evidence could not be used to show he was a bad
Page 1 2 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|