Opinion
C084996
12-03-2019
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL HENRY BIELIZNA, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. P17CRF003)
Defendant Michael Henry Bielizna appeals from convictions of multiple crimes arising from an incident of domestic violence. A jury found him guilty of corporal injury to a spouse or cohabitant, assault with a deadly weapon, and disobeying a domestic relations court order. The jury also found true the enhancement allegation for personally inflicting great bodily injury. On appeal, defendant contends that the prosecution's expert witness on intimate partner battering was not properly qualified and her testimony should have been excluded. We will affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant had an intimate relationship with the victim for about one year and had begun living with her a few days before the charged incident of domestic abuse. That day, after defendant and the victim had gone to a casino together, a witness saw the victim in distress on the side of the road. The victim was limping and struggling to walk, barefoot, disheveled, and her jeans were saturated in blood. The witness got out of the car to assist the victim and observed a large circular tear in her jeans and a gash in her thigh gushing with blood. The witness called for help from another passerby, asking her to call 911. The victim told the two women who assisted her that her boyfriend had stabbed her with a bottle. She said it was not the first time and she was concerned that defendant was circling them in his car. During the 911 call, the victim said that her boyfriend wounded her with a broken bottle.
When a deputy arrived and applied a tourniquet to the victim's leg, she said, "He just can't keep his hands off of me." She also told the paramedic that her ex-boyfriend stabbed her with a glass bottle and hit her head. She told another deputy in the ambulance that defendant stabbed her in the leg and when she tried to run away, he pulled her down to the ground, hit her head on the concrete, and choked her. Deputies found spots of blood all over defendant's car and a broken bottle with dried blood on it in the back of the car. The jury also viewed a security video of a prior uncharged incident in a casino elevator where defendant pushed the victim and put his hands around her neck and subsequent footage of defendant pushing the victim to the ground in the casino parking lot.
At trial, the victim recanted and claimed that she cut her leg accidently while in defendant's car. Regarding the uncharged incident, she claimed that she and defendant were "joking around" in the casino elevator and denied he pushed her in the parking lot.
Defendant objected in limine to the qualifications of Julia Hackett, the expert proffered by the prosecution, to testify about intimate partner battering. Following a hearing under Evidence Code section 402, the trial court ruled that Hackett was qualified to testify as an expert at trial on intimate partner battering. Hackett is a client service coordinator for the Center for Violence Free Relationships. She has a master's degree in psychology, completed a 65-hour training course recognized by the state on the subjects of domestic violence and sexual assaults, and completes 24 to 40 hours of annual training on domestic violence and sexual assault. She has counseled thousands of domestic violence victims since 1996 and in her current role, she trains case managers and counselors. The trial court instructed the jury that it could consider Hackett's testimony for the limited purpose of deciding whether the victim's conduct was consistent with the conduct of an abused person and in evaluating the believability of the victim's trial testimony. Hackett testified about the "cycle of violence" in abusive relationships and that it is common for domestic violence victims to minimize the abuse and refuse to cooperate with the prosecution or law enforcement. She explained, for example, that victims of intimate partner battering will often recant and say that the violence did not happen or that it was a mutual fight.
Following the trial, the jury found defendant guilty of corporal injury to a spouse or cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)), assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), and disobeying a domestic relations court order (§ 273.6, subd. (a)). The jury also found true the enhancement allegation for personally inflicting great bodily injury. The trial court then sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of nine years in state prison.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in allowing Hackett to testify as an expert on aspects of intimate partner battering and the patterns of behavior between victims and batterers. Specifically, defendant contends that Hackett was not sufficiently qualified to testify as an expert on the subject of intimate partner battering. We disagree.
"A person is qualified to testify as an expert if he has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subject to which his testimony relates." (Evid. Code, § 720, subd. (a).) It is within the trial court's discretion to determine whether a witness is competent and qualified to render an expert opinion. (Huffman v. Lindquist (1951) 37 Cal.2d 465, 476.) "The governing rules are well settled. First, the decision of a trial court to admit expert testimony 'will not be disturbed on appeal unless a manifest abuse of discretion is shown.' [Citation.]" (People v. McAlpin (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1289, 1299.) We will only find error if the evidence shows that the witness clearly lacks the qualifications to testify as an expert. (People v. Farnam (2002) 28 Cal.4th 107, 162.)
Defendant has failed to present any persuasive argument on appeal that Hackett was not qualified to testify as an expert. The record shows that she possesses significant training and experience in the areas about which she testified. Hackett personally counseled thousands of domestic violence victims over the course of her 21-year career in this field. Further, she completed a state-recognized 65-hour training course, approximately 80 percent of which was focused on domestic violence, in addition to annual training on domestic violence and sexual assault.
Hackett's expertise is similar to that challenged in People v. Brown (2001) 96 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1. In Brown, the court reasoned that a witness on intimate partner battering had "more than an adequate basis for her qualification as an expert" based on her 13 years of experience as a domestic violence counselor and direct contact with thousands of domestic violence victims. (Id. at p. 37.) Similarly, while defendant complains that Hackett did not use the specific phrase "intimate partner battering" in describing her experience, her extensive work with victims of domestic violence and training on domestic violence discloses an adequate basis for her qualification as an expert. We cannot conclude that Hackett clearly lacks qualification as an expert in the area of intimate partner battering. (People v. Farnam, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 162.) Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the expert testimony on intimate partner battering.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
RAYE, P. J. We concur: /s/_________
BLEASE, J. /s/_________
MAURO, J.