PEOPLE v. HALEY
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JEFFREY PATRICK HALEY, Defendant and Appellant.
No. G041747.
Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Three.
Filed August 25, 2010.
Stephen M. Hinkle, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Emily Hanks and James D. Dutton, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTSOPINIONARONSON, J.
A jury found defendant Jeffrey Patrick Haley guilty of misdemeanor assault (Pen. Code, § 240), possession of a firearm by a felon (Id., § 12021, subd. (a)(1)), misdemeanor vandalism (Id., § 594, subd. (a), (b)(2)(A)), four misdemeanor counts of violation of a protective order (Id., § 166, subd. (c)(1), (2)), willful infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant (Id., § 273.5, subd. (a)), and willful infliction of corporal punishment on a child (Id., § 273d, subd. (a)).
Defendant contends the trial court erred by admitting evidence of a 1997 domestic violence incident under Evidence Code section 1109.1 The evidence had been excluded at his first trial, which ended in a mistrial. He complains the court lacked authority to revisit the evidentiary ruling, abused its discretion under section 352, and violated his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the laws. Defendant also argues the court abused its discretion by excluding under section 352 an edited 10-minute tape recorded statement the victim gave to police at the scene of one of the incidents, and claims reversal is required based on the cumulative effect of the errors. Finally, in a supplemental brief he argues he is entitled to additional custody credits based on recent amendments to section 4019. For the reasons expressed below, we affirm the judgment, but remand for the trial court to recalculate defendant's custody credits. IFactual and Procedural Background
1. All further statutory references are to the Evidence Code unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 1102 provides: "In a criminal action, evidence of the defendant's character or a trait of his character in the form of an opinion or evidence of his reputation is not made inadmissible by Section 1101 if such evidence is: [¶] (a) Offered by the defendant to prove his conduct in conformity with such character or trait of character. [¶] (b) Offered by the prosecution to rebut evidence adduced by the defendant under subdivision (a)."
3. Section 1109, subdivision (a)(1), provides: "Except as provided in subdivision (e) or (f), in a criminal action in which the defendant is accused of an offense involving domestic violence, evidence of the defendant's commission of other domestic violence is not made inadmissible by Section 1101 if the evidence is not inadmissible pursuant to Section 352." Subdivision (e) specifies that acts of domestic violence occurring 10 or more years earlier are inadmissible "unless the court determines that the admission of this evidence is in the interest of justice."
4. Section 1109, subdivision (b), provides: "In an action in which evidence is to be offered under this section, the people shall disclose the evidence to the defendant, including statements of witnesses or a summary of the substance of any testimony that is expected to be offered, in compliance with the provisions of Section 1054.7 of the Penal Code." Section 1054.7 provides, "The disclosures required under this chapter shall be made at least 30 days prior to the trial, unless good cause is shown why a disclosure should be denied, restricted, or deferred. If the material and information becomes known to, or comes into the possession of, a party within 30 days of trial, disclosure shall be made immediately, unless good cause is shown why a disclosure should be denied, restricted, or deferred."
5. Radfar's testimony that defendant told her he had thrown his former wife through a sliding glass door was not admitted for the truth as propensity evidence, but to establish elements (verbal threats, sustained fear) constituting a violation of Penal Code section 422 on the current occasion.
6. We note the trial court could have excluded any statement in the interview that was inadmissible on other grounds.