V

Thesaurus

						iLaw Dictionary			USAConstitution Law
						California			Law Students-USL
						Law Dictionary			BankruptcyCode.US
						Evidence-Propensity			United States Law.US

US Codes

State Codes

Evidence

Law Students-USL

Federal Rules of Evidence

Medical Dictionaries

A Legal and Business Portal
A Legal and Business Portal

California
Law Dictionary

A - Aa - Ab - Ac - B- C-- Ca- D - E- F - G - H -I- J - L - M- N --U- K to Z

Criminal Law Propensity Evidence Evid. Code, § 1109 U.S. Const., 6th and 14th Amends.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 15.)
(People v. Price)

V. EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 1109

Finally, Steven contends that admission of propensity evidence of his 2001 prior act of domestic violence denied him a fair trial. He urges us to find that section 1109 of the Evidence Code, which permitted the trial court to admit evidence of the 2001 incident to show his propensity to commit acts of domestic violence, violates his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. He argues that the code section is unconstitutional both on its face and as applied. (See Evid. Code, § 1109; see also U.S. Const., 6th and 14th Amends.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 15.)[22]

Before trial, the prosecution gave notice that it intended to offer evidence of four incidents of domestic violence, including one in 2001 that led to Steven’s guilty plea to and misdemeanor conviction for inflicting corporal injury on his spouse.[23] (See § 273.5; Evid. Code, § 1109.) It also sought to admit his prior convictions for this offense for impeachment use. The trial court ruled that only evidence of the 2001 incident would be admitted. Jamilah, her mother Jacqueline Thomas and Antioch Police Officer Tara McBroom testified about the January 2001 incident at trial. The parties also stipulated to the fact of Steven’s related no contest plea and misdemeanor conviction. (See pt. II.D., ante.)

In another published decision, we have already considered and rejected the federal and state constitutional facial due process challenges that Steven raises regarding the admission of propensity evidence pursuant to Evidence Code section 1109. We need not reiterate its reasoning here but merely endorse its continuing viability. (See People v. Escobar (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1095-1097, cert. den. sub nom. Escobar v. California (2001) 532 U.S. 1053; see also People v. Jennings (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1309-1310; People v. Brown (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1332-1334.) His equal protection challenge—that Evidence Code section 1109 improperly singles out defendants accused of domestic violence and treats them differently from others accused of crimes other than sex offenses—has also been resolved in favor of the trial court’s admission of this evidence. (See People v. Jennings, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1310-1313.) We find the reasoning of this decision to be sound, as well. The evidentiary distinction drawn by section 1109 of the Evidence Code between domestic violence offenses and other offenses is relevant to the evidentiary purpose underlying this distinction. (People v. Jennings, supra, at p. 1311.)

Steven also argues that Evidence Code section 1109 is unconstitutional as applied in his case. He reasons that the evidence in his case was extremely weak because it was comprised of unreliable hearsay evidence of Jamilah’s statements to police. By admitting evidence of the prior domestic violence incident, Steven contends that the trial court made the case against him artificially strong, shifting the jury’s focus from the charged incident to the prior incident. He urges us to conclude that the admission of this evidence was highly inflammatory and prejudicial, denying him a fair trial. This argument is premised on his assumption that there was little admissible evidence of the July 2002 incident. In light of our finding that Jamilah’s statements to Antioch police were admissible, this argument also fails. (See pts. II., III., ante.) Thus, we conclude that the trial court did not err in admitting this evidence.[24]

People v. Price 6/30/04 A101668CA1/4-Hearsay/Battered Womens Syndrome

Jun 30 2004

A101668
[PDF] [DOC]

P. v. Price 6/30/04 A101668CA1/4

A - B- C- D - E- F - G - H -I- J - L - M- N - K to Z
People. v. Carmony 3/25/05 CA3C038802-Romero Motion
California: Authoritative-Law Dictionary: Table of Contents
Glossaries Directory Table of Contents
Thesaurus Directory
Dictionaries Directory Table of Contents