Cirilo Duran Zenaida Duran v. City of Maywood William B. Wallace, Individually and as a Peace Officer Gil Bowman, Individually and as Chief of Police Rick Curiel
Docket: 97-55262
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; July 11, 2000; Federal Appellate Court
Cirilo and Zenaida Duran filed a civil rights lawsuit against Officer Rick Curiel and the City of Maywood after Curiel shot and killed their son, Eloy Duran. The jury ruled in favor of the defendants. On appeal, the Duran plaintiffs argued that the district court made errors by not providing three requested jury instructions and by excluding evidence of a subsequent shooting involving Curiel.
The background details the incident on August 15, 1994, where Curiel and Officer William Wallace responded to a dispatch about loud music and gunfire. Upon arrival, they encountered Eloy Duran, who was armed. Curiel testified that after giving commands to drop his weapon, Duran pointed his gun at the officers, prompting Curiel to fire multiple shots, ultimately resulting in Duran's death.
The plaintiffs claimed violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants successfully moved to exclude evidence of Curiel's later shooting, which the district court deemed had little probative value and posed a risk of unfair prejudice. The district court also rejected the plaintiffs' proposed jury instructions related to Fourth Amendment liability, California's Home Protection Bill of Rights, and gun handling standards. Ultimately, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions, agreeing they were appropriate.
Jury instructions must be accurately formulated to address relevant issues, state the law correctly, and avoid misleading the jury. The review standard for jury instructions is "abuse of discretion," while challenges based on misstatements of law are reviewed de novo. Similarly, evidentiary rulings by a district court are subject to abuse of discretion review, and a reversal based on an erroneous ruling requires a finding of prejudice.
The Plaintiffs argue the district court erred by not providing an "Alexander instruction," which applies when evidence suggests that a police officer's excessive use of force escalated a situation leading to a plaintiff's injury. The Plaintiffs contend that the officers' approach to the Duran residence, with guns drawn and without announcing their presence, was stealthy and likely to provoke an armed response. However, the court found that the officers acted reasonably, arriving in marked police cars and in uniform, and that their actions did not constitute a stealth approach. The absence of evidence demonstrating that the officers' behavior was excessive or unreasonable negated the need for the Alexander instruction.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs claimed the district court erred by not giving an instruction regarding California Penal Code § 198.5, which establishes a rebuttable presumption of reasonable fear when force is used against someone unlawfully entering a home. The proposed instruction was not provided, which the Plaintiffs argue was erroneous.
Plaintiffs contended that the district court erred by not providing an instruction that would presume Duran's armed response was reasonable, as the officers appeared to him as armed trespassers unlawfully on his property. The court disagreed, asserting that the "unlawful and forcible entry" requirement under § 198.5 should be assessed from the perspective of a reasonable person in Duran's position. Given that the officers arrived in marked police vehicles and in uniform, a reasonable person would not perceive their presence as unlawful or forcible. The act of walking up the driveway did not constitute forced entry, as established in prior case law.
Additionally, Plaintiffs claimed the court erred by not giving their proposed instruction on the heightened duty of care concerning firearms. They quoted language from Tucker v. Lombardo, suggesting a strict standard of care for firearm handling. The court rejected this argument, clarifying that the standard of care for firearm handling is consistent with general negligence principles—ordinary care under the circumstances, not a heightened standard. The court's jury instruction accurately reflected California negligence law, describing ordinary care as the prudence expected of law enforcement officers in similar situations. Thus, the district court acted within its discretion in denying the Plaintiffs' proposed instruction, which misrepresented the applicable legal standard.
The plaintiffs argued that the district court erred in excluding evidence of a shooting involving Officer Curiel that occurred three days after the Duran shooting. The admissibility of such "other act" evidence is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), which prohibits its use to show a person's character but allows it for purposes like motive or intent. For the evidence to be admissible, four criteria must be met: sufficient proof of the other act, proximity in time, relevance to a material issue, and similarity to the charged offense. Despite meeting these criteria, evidence can still be excluded under Rule 403 if its probative value is outweighed by the potential for unfair prejudice.
The district court determined that even if the conditions under Rule 404(b) were satisfied, the evidence should be excluded under Rule 403 for two reasons: the minimal probative value was outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice and confusion, and admitting the evidence would necessitate an extensive inquiry, potentially involving numerous witnesses and experts. Consequently, the court concluded that the risks of confusion and undue delay outweighed the marginal value of the evidence. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to exclude the evidence and affirmed the ruling, rejecting the plaintiffs' claims regarding jury instructions and evidence exclusion.
