People v. Shoemaker

Citations: 135 Cal. App. 3d 442; 185 Cal. Rptr. 370; 1982 Cal. App. LEXIS 1919Docket: Crim. 11536

Court: California Court of Appeal; August 26, 1982; California; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Court of Appeals of California addressed the admissibility of defense evidence regarding a victim's subsequent violent acts to establish his aggressive character at the time of an earlier crime. The court concluded that such post-crime character evidence is relevant and admissible unless excluded under Evidence Code section 352. Timothy Floyd Shoemaker was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon and inflicting great bodily injury, with a prior conviction noted. He appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly excluded evidence of the victim Ralph Kelly's subsequent violent behavior, which occurred two and a half months after the incident. 

The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's exclusion, determining that the evidence would have minimal probative value, could confuse the jury, and was cumulative and prejudicial. However, the court allowed the jury to be informed of pending charges against Kelly related to that incident, including burglary, attempted robbery, attempted murder, and weapons charges, for assessing his potential bias or motive in testifying against Shoemaker. The judgment was affirmed.

Two defense witnesses testified about Kelly's violent history, indicating he had previously assaulted his ex-wife and a former girlfriend. The court allowed the jury to consider evidence of Kelly's violent character to establish that he was the aggressor in the case. The defendant argued that he was denied a fair trial by not being allowed to present all relevant evidence regarding Kelly's subsequent acts of violence, which he claimed would demonstrate Kelly's tendency to unprovoked aggression towards those close to him. Under Evidence Code section 1103, a criminal defendant can present evidence of a victim's character to suggest their conduct during the charged crime, thereby making evidence of a victim's violent character admissible in self-defense claims. Historically, prior acts of aggression were admissible under this section, but the defendant contended that subsequent acts are also relevant to establish a pattern of violent behavior. The Attorney General countered that only prior acts fall within the scope of section 1103, arguing that subsequent acts do not demonstrate prior character. The court found this reasoning flawed, asserting that evidence of subsequent violent acts can be relevant and admissible under section 1103 to illustrate the victim's character at the time of the earlier incident. The trial court retains discretion under section 352 to exclude evidence if its probative value is significantly outweighed by potential prejudice or confusion. However, the defendant emphasized that the right to a fair trial necessitates the admission of all relevant evidence of significant probative value.

Defendant seeks to establish Kelly's violent tendencies to support his claim of being attacked unprovoked. He argues that evidence regarding Kelly's alleged attack on an elderly couple is crucial, as it is more relevant to his own alleged assault compared to previous incidents involving Kelly's ex-spouse and girlfriend. Defendant contends that the nature of the attack on the elderly couple, being a non-domestic assault, has different implications and is not cumulative to prior evidence of Kelly's violence.

The court upheld its discretion under section 352, finding no abuse in excluding the testimony about the elderly couple's attack due to its minimal probative value compared to its prejudicial impact. It noted that the jury was already aware of Kelly's violent character through testimony from two defense witnesses and his prior assault convictions. The court emphasized that while defendants have a right to present material evidence, this right does not extend to all evidence, especially if it has limited probative value.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the probative value of the testimony regarding the subsequent assault was slight and that any potential error in excluding it was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt, including his admissions to law enforcement and neighbors. The judgment was affirmed.

Evidence Code section 1101 establishes that character evidence, whether in opinion, reputation, or specific conduct instances, is generally inadmissible to prove a person's conduct on a specific occasion. However, it allows for the admission of evidence of prior crimes or wrongful acts when relevant to proving facts such as motive, opportunity, or identity, rather than to demonstrate a predisposition to commit such acts. The section does not affect the admissibility of evidence related to a witness's credibility. Although "character" is not specifically defined in the Evidence Code, it generally refers to an individual's traits or dispositions. In this context, traits related to violence have been described with various terms such as "bloodthirsty" or "dangerous." Evidence of subsequent conduct may be admissible to prove relevant facts, provided it is not too remote; events occurring less than three months after the crime are considered timely. The Victims' Bill of Rights (Prop. No. 8) does not alter the provisions of Evidence Code section 1103, affirming that relevant evidence should not be excluded in criminal proceedings unless specified by subsequent legislation. The case of People v. Mayfield illustrates that a defendant's right to present evidence in defense is fundamental, regardless of time consumption, provided the evidence is not cumulative. In this instance, the testimony offered by the defendant was deemed cumulative.