From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Player

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Sacramento
Jul 24, 2008
No. C055076 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 24, 2008)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID PLAYER, Defendant and Appellant. C055076 California Court of Appeal, Third District, Sacramento July 24, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super. Ct. No. 02F08927

BUTZ, J.

Sentenced to 32 years to life in state prison for repeatedly stabbing a correctional officer, defendant David Player appeals his conviction claiming evidentiary error. For the reasons discussed below, we shall affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

While serving two consecutive life terms in prison, defendant engaged in an altercation with several correctional officers. During the altercation, Officer Aaron Tuter attempted to restrain defendant, who then used a sharpened toothbrush to stab Officer Tuter seven or eight times.

Defendant was subsequently charged with assault with a deadly weapon with malice aforethought while he was serving a life term (Pen. Code, § 4500--count one), assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)--count two), and possession of a sharp instrument by a prison inmate (§ 4502, subd. (a)--count three). The second amended information alleged two prior strike convictions pursuant to sections 1192.7, subdivision (c), and 667, subdivisions (b)-(i), and a prior conviction pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a).

Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion seeking to admit evidence, in the form of witness testimony, that Officer Tuter previously “dry fired” a gun into a trash can near the cash register at a local restaurant. The restaurant manager asked Officer Tuter to leave, and the witness, a waitress, called the police. Officer Tuter was not charged with any crime.

In support of his motion to admit the waitress’s testimony, defendant argued that Officer Tuter’s conduct amounted to brandishing a firearm in violation of section 417, subdivision (a)(2), which the trial court agreed was a crime of moral turpitude. Thus, defendant wanted to use the waitress’s testimony to impeach Officer Tuter’s credibility.

After considering defendant’s argument and offer of proof, the trial court denied his request to admit the evidence for impeachment purposes. The court found Officer Tuter’s conduct to be “stupid and unprofessional,” but concluded that it did not amount to brandishing a firearm, and thus was not an act of moral turpitude. The court further ruled that even if defendant’s conduct was an act of moral turpitude, the prejudicial effect of the evidence “substantially outweigh[ed]” any probative value, and the testimony was excluded on that ground as well.

At trial, counsel offered that defendant would claim he stabbed Officer Tuter in self-defense. In support of his claim, defendant tried again to admit the waitress’s testimony in order to corroborate his belief that Officer Tuter was trying to kill him. The court again denied defendant’s request, saying: “Your initial motion was a motion to impeach the witness under Wheeler. I denied that motion and stated my reasons for the record. That ruling will stand. [¶] I have not yet heard anything that would cause the court to change its previous ruling, but I will continue to listen to the trial, and if I believe that my initial ruling was incorrect or that that evidence is admissible under some other theory, then I will revisit it.”

People v. Wheeler (1992) 4 Cal.4th 284.

At the close of evidence, defendant tried a third time to persuade the court to admit evidence of Officer Tuter’s prior conduct. This time, defendant argued the evidence was admissible not only to impeach Officer Tuter and to corroborate defendant’s state of mind, but also to show Officer Tuter’s “character for violence or misconduct” under Evidence Code section 1103.

The court again rejected defendant’s request: “I do not find that the offer of proof made on the incident satisfies the court that it is relevant. I do not find that it goes to the witness’s character for violence. As the court understands the incident, I think it is dissimilar, and under Evidence Code section 352, that the probative value does not outweigh the prejudicial effect. Under Evidence Code section 352, I do not find that it is relevant to the charges in this case. [¶] And I will affirm my previous ruling.”

Ultimately, the jury found defendant guilty of all charges and found true the special allegations and enhancements. The trial court denied defendant’s request to strike either of his prior strike convictions, struck count two as a lesser included offense of count one, and stayed defendant’s sentence on count three pursuant to section 654. The court then sentenced defendant to 27 years to life on count one, added five years for defendant’s prior conviction, and imposed $5,000 in restitution fines pursuant to sections 1202.4, subdivision (b) and 1202.45.

Defendant appeals his conviction.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, defendant claims the trial court erred in refusing to admit the waitress’s testimony. Defendant fails, however, to articulate an argument for how the trial court erred--failing even to include the standard of review.

In a challenge to a judgment, it is incumbent upon the defendant to present factual analysis and legal authority on each point made or else the argument may be deemed waived. (People v. Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557, 618 [appellate court may reject any claim where presentation of a generalized argument is raised without any argument or authority on the specific theory raised].) Here, rather than making a coherent claim on appeal, defendant recites an unnecessarily detailed description of the facts, describes the arguments made in the trial court, and includes only boilerplate law regarding due process and a defendant’s right to put forth evidence. Defendant’s argument leaves this court to discern his particular claim of error, find the applicable law, and perform the analysis. That is not the role of this court.

Nevertheless, having reviewed the record, we understand defendant’s claim to be that the trial court abused its discretion when it thrice denied his request to admit evidence of Officer Tuter’s prior conduct under Evidence Code section 352.

A trial court’s exercise of discretion under Evidence Code section 352 will not be disturbed except on a showing the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice. (People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 9-10 (Rodriguez).)

Here, defendant presented the trial court with three separate grounds for admitting the waitress’s testimony: (1) to impeach Officer Tuter, (2) to corroborate defendant’s state of mind, and (3) to show Officer Tuter’s character for violence. The court denied each request, finding that under Evidence Code section 352, the prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighed its probative value. Under the circumstances, we cannot say that the court’s decision was “arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd.” (Rodriguez, supra, 20 Cal.4th at pp. 9-10.) Accordingly, we find no error.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: BLEASE, Acting P.J. HULL, J.


Summaries of

People v. Player

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Sacramento
Jul 24, 2008
No. C055076 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 24, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Player

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID PLAYER, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Third District, Sacramento

Date published: Jul 24, 2008

Citations

No. C055076 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 24, 2008)