 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Rizo4/24/2002
r fought with the defendant prior to the defendant's assault on the victim. The court stated: "Logically, the animosity which may have arisen between the two families as a result of defendant's fight with [the victim's] brother and the felony prosecution which followed supplied the motive for defendant's behavior and was a meaningful link in the People's chain of incriminating evidence against him." (Id., at p. 85.) Here, similarly, the animosity that may have arisen between the Rizo family and Galvan as a result of the prior fights was a meaningful link in the prosecution's case against defendants.
Certain defendants note they were not present at one or both of the prior fights and there was no evidence they knew of them. However, it was a reasonable inference for the jury to draw that family members would be aware of prior confrontations involving (at least) three fellow family members.
Defendants also argue the soccer fight was not sufficiently similar to the present offenses to show motive. However, "because a motive is ordinarily the incentive for criminal behavior, its probative value generally exceeds its prejudicial effect, and wide latitude is permitted in admitting evidence of its existence [citations] ." (People v. Lopez, supra, 1 Cal.App.3d 78, 85.) Thus, " hen `the motive of the crime is sought to be established before a jury, the whole conduct, life, and character of the parties as affecting this question, is open to inquiry.'" (People v. Helfend (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 873, 880.) Given this wide latitude, and the fact the appropriate standard of review for alleged error in admitting evidence is abuse of discretion (People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529, 587, overruled on another point in Price v. Superior Court, supra, 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1069, fn. 13), we find no error.
Defendants argue the soccer match was too remote in time to be relevant, because there was some evidence it may have occurred as early as 1995. However, they concede there was also evidence it occurred about a year before the shooting. In cases of conflicting evidence, we are, of course, required to accept the version most favorable to the judgment. (People v. Stansbury (1995) 9 Cal.4th 824, 831.)
Defendants finally argue the court should have excluded the evidence under Evidence Code section 352. Rulings under section 352 are reviewed for abuse of discretion. (People v. Minifie (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1055, 1070.) We agree with the Attorney General that the evidence of the prior fights was not unduly inflammatory compared to the current offenses. Therefore, the potential for prejudice was not so great as to render it an abuse of discretion to admit the evidence. For the same reason, even if the evidence had not been admitted, it is not reasonably likely the jury would have reached a verdict more favorable to defendants. Thus, even if admitting the evidence were error, it would not warrant reversal. (People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 878.)
B. Admission of Evidence Regarding "Krazy Crowd"
At various points in the trial, evidence referring to the term "Krazy Crowd" was presented. There was evidence that one or more individuals in the group that fought with Galvan at the wedding prior to the shooting yelled out the term. There was also evidence that Jesus said to Galvan, "This is Krazy Crowd" in the night club when Ivan threatened to kill Galvan. In addition, there was evidence that, just before the fight outside the club, a group of persons which included Ivan, Cesar, Victor, and Salvador threatened Galvan, and some yelled "Krazy Crowd." Finally, papers found in defendants' residence bearing the term "Krazy Crowd" were admitted.
The court ruled the evi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|