Opinion
F072925
06-05-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HENRY THOMAS SMITH, Defendant and Appellant.
Jeffrey J. Gale, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Stephen B. Herndon, and Peter W. Thompson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Fresno Super. Ct. No. F15903741)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Arlan L. Harrell, Judge. Jeffrey J. Gale, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Stephen B. Herndon, and Peter W. Thompson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Franson, J., and Smith, J.
-ooOoo-
INTRODUCTION
Appellant/defendant Henry Thomas Smith was civilly committed to Coalinga State Hospital. He was housed in a locked unit that kept certain patients separate and apart from other hospital patients, based on their history of violence and aggressive behavior. Defendant and the patients in the locked unit were subject to more restrictive rules than the other hospital patients. Defendant violated the locked unit's specific rules by speaking to a patient from another unit. Christopher Grijalva, the unit supervisor, attempted to verbally redirect defendant and escort him back to his unit. Defendant tackled Grijalva against a wall and tried to choke him.
Based on this incident, defendant was charged with felony assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)), with eight prior strike convictions. After a jury trial, he was found not guilty of the charged offense and guilty of the lesser included offense of misdemeanor simple assault (§ 240). He was sentenced to 180 days in jail.
On appeal, defendant contends the court violated his constitutional right to present a defense because it denied his motion to introduce evidence about the hospital's regulations. Defendant asserts the court's order prevented him from showing that Grijalva purportedly fabricated and violated the hospital's actual rules when he disciplined and used force against defendant during the charged incident and prior situations. Defendant asserts this evidence was relevant to show that Grijalva used his own version of the rules to use physical force against defendant, and establish that defendant was afraid of Grijalva to support his claim of self-defense.
As we will explain, the court initially excluded defendant's proposed evidence but reconsidered that ruling during trial, and ultimately permitted the defense to introduce evidence to support its attack upon the prosecution's evidence about whether defendant violated the rules. We affirm.
FACTS
In 2012, defendant was a patient at Coalinga State Hospital and detained pursuant to a civil commitment. He was assigned to "Unit 9," a locked unit within the hospital for physically-aggressive patients. There were 12 patients assigned to the unit.
Hereinafter, Unit 9 will be referred to as either "the unit" or "the locked unit."
The unit opened in September 2011. Defendant was the second hospital patient who qualified to be transferred from the main hospital population into the locked unit, based on his history of violence and aggression toward the staff and other patients.
The unit's rules
Matt Collins, a behavior specialist who helped create the locked unit, testified he participated in writing the special rules for the unit, based on the hospital's prior experiences with violent patients. Collins explained that patients in the unit were not allowed to eat in the unit's day room because patients frequently threw food when frustrated, and the staff wanted to keep the patients limited to one area during meals.
Collins testified there was an "out-of-bounds" area inside the locked unit, which was a hallway that led to the clinicians' offices and an outer door. The patients were prohibited from entering this hallway to prevent them from confronting staff and obtaining contraband passed under the outer door by other hospital patients.
On appeal, defendant argues the court improperly prevented him from introducing evidence about the actual rules in the unit. As we will explain, the court initially excluded such evidence but, as the trial continued, allowed defendant to introduce limited evidence on the topic since prosecution witnesses had testified about such rules.
After the court reconsidered its ruling, Collins was called as a defense witness and extensively testified on crossexamination about the creation of the unit and his work on writing the unit's special rules.
Collins testified that patients in the unit could speak to each other and to staff members. However, there was a rule that prohibited patients in the unit from speaking to other patients in the hospital who were not housed in the unit. The rule was unique to the unit, and it was intended to prevent the unit's patients from receiving contraband from patients outside the unit.
Collins testified that if a patient in the unit spoke to another hospital patient while being taken to a medical appointment, that would constitute a rule violation. However, the patient would still be allowed to attend the medical appointment even though he violated the rule. The patients were not punished for violating the rules, but verbally redirected to change their behavior.
Grijalva, the unit supervisor and the victim in this case, testified that officers and other staff members escorted patients from their locked unit to and from the dining room for their meals. The patients in the unit were allowed to eat their meals only in designated areas. Grijalva testified the unit patients were not allowed to eat or talk with patients from other units. They were not allowed in the hospital's common areas without being escorted by staff members. They were also restricted from certain areas within the unit.
Collins, Grijalva, and Dr. Moto Fujii, a staff psychologist in the unit, testified that patients in the unit were advised of the unit's special rules when they were transferred in, and the rules were also posted.
Collins testified these rules had not changed since the unit opened in 2011.
Grijalva testified he was present when defendant was transferred into the unit, and the unit's specific rules were explained to him. Grijalva testified that defendant was advised about unit's rules both verbally and in writing, and he was given a copy of the written rules.
Collins believed defendant had asked the staff for a written copy of the rules, but he did not know if defendant received it.
Grijalva testified there were separate "administrative directives" that applied to patients in the entire hospital, and were also available to patients in the locked unit. However, the locked unit's rules controlled over the hospital's general directives for patients housed in Unit 9.
DEFENDANT'S PRIOR INCIDENTS
The prosecution introduced evidence about two prior incidents between defendant and Grijalva.
December 2011; defendant punches Grijalva
Grijalva testified that as of December 2011, defendant had been in the unit for four months. Grijavla did not have any problems with him.
Collins testified that defendant's behavior conflicted with the staff if he did not agree with a rule. Defendant once hit another patient during an argument, but he generally got along with the clinical staff.
In December 2011, however, an incident occurred when the staff observed that defendant was eating his lunch in the dayroom. The dayroom was within the unit, but the unit's rules prohibited patients from eating in that particular room.
Grijalva approached defendant and told him that he could not eat in the day room, and he had to go to the dining room. Defendant repeatedly refused. Grijalva told defendant that he was going to take away his food.
As Grijalva reached for the food, defendant punched him "really hard" in the face. Defendant threw additional punches and Grijalva avoided them. The staff arrived and tried to gain control of defendant. Defendant resisted and punched Grijalva a few more times. Defendant was placed in the restraint room.
May 2012 incident in the out-of-bounds area
At some point after the December 2011 incident, defendant left the hospital and went to court because of the assault on Grijalva. He was returned to the unit within a few weeks.
Defendant was involved in another incident in May 2012, which began when he was standing in the "out-of-bounds" hallway within the locked unit. This area was clearly marked with red tile. Grijalva and two staff members approached defendant, attempted to verbally redirect him, and told him to return to the regular area. Defendant did not comply. Grijalva repeatedly directed defendant to leave the out-of-bounds area. Defendant ignored him.
Defendant stared at Grijalva, walked closer, and stood nose-to-nose with him. Officer Albert Alvarado of the Coalinga State Hospital Police Department testified defendant leaned into Grijalva's personal space and appeared to bump him. Grijalva lost his balance and stepped backwards.
Grijalva, Officer Alvarado, and another staff member took control of defendant and held him against the wall. Defendant resisted and struggled with them, and he was placed in handcuffs.
Defendant was initially placed in a seclusion room. Officer Alvardo testified he later entered the room and intended to remove the handcuffs. Defendant refused to comply with Alvarado's orders, and he was moved to a restraint room because he was considered a danger to others.
Defendant filed a patient abuse claim based on the May 2012 incident; it was not sustained.
THE CHARGED OFFENSE
Defendant talks to another patient
On June 25, 2012, defendant was still a patient in the unit. On that day, staff members escorted defendant and other patients from the unit to the dining room for lunch. The patients from the unit were the only people in the dining room at that time. The dining room was located outside of the locked unit. Grijalva did not usually participate in the escort, but assisted the staff that day because they did not have enough people to help.
After defendant finished eating, he stood outside the dining room's doorway and talked to a patient in the hallway. The patient was not housed in the unit. Defendant appeared like he was going to leave the dining room.
Grijalva testified he approached defendant and attempted to verbally "redirect" him back into the dining room because he was talking to a patient who was not housed in the locked unit. Grijalva testified he used a calm voice, told defendant to step back into the dining room, and asked defendant to stop speaking to the other patient.
Defendant's reaction to Grijalva's directions
Grijalva testified that defendant ignored his verbal redirection "the first couple of times." Defendant slowly turned around and looked at Grijalva with a "very stern" and unpleasant stare. Defendant became agitated and told Grijalva that he could not tell him to whom he could talk. Grijalva said that he could. Defendant said to leave him alone and he was not breaking any rules.
Grijalva testified he told defendant that he would physically redirect him if necessary. Defendant replied, " 'No, you're not. You placed your hands on me too many times in the past and it's not going to happen again.' "
Officer Angelo Arredondo was in the hallway outside the patient dining room and heard the verbal exchange between defendant and Grijalva. Defendant told Arredondo that "he had paperwork on file that explained to him speaking to another individual from another unit was not against the rules and that it violated his patient rights." Defendant asked Arredondo to "take note" and "pay attention" to what Grijalva said to him, because Grijalva had put his hands on defendant "too many times in the past."
Officer Arredondo testified that he had been told that hospital regulations prohibited patients in the locked unit from communicating with patients who were not housed in the unit. Arredondo testified that defendant's act of talking to the other patient in the dining room doorway was not against the law. Arredondo was not authorized to take action against him at that point, and it was up to the hospital staff to address the rule violation.
Grijalva testified he told defendant that they were going to return to the locked unit. Grijalva also said that someone else could escort defendant. Grijalva made this statement because defendant had previously assaulted him, and he knew defendant did not like it when Grijalva gave him directions.
Defendant tackles Grijalva and tries to choke him
Defendant ignored Grijalva's orders. Defendant had been holding a cup which he put down. He also took off his sunglasses. Defendant's demeanor became more boisterous, and he moved closer to Grijalva.
Grijalva testified he decided to physically redirect defendant because he was concerned that defendant could act out. Grijalva placed one hand on defendant's right forearm and the other hand under his right elbow, so he could escort defendant back to the locked unit. Grijalva testified he did not grab defendant.
Defendant tackled Grijalva and lifted him off his feet. Defendant used a lot of force and slammed Grijalva against a wall and a Plexiglas window. Defendant then placed his hands around Grijalva's neck with a "real good grip" and choked him.
Grijalva testified he could not breath. Grijalva's face turned red, and he tried not to pass out. Grijalva tried to tell defendant to stop.
Officer Arredondo tried to pull defendant away from Grijalva, but he was unable to gain control of defendant or get him to release his chokehold around Grijalva's neck.
Officer Arredondo testified that defendant eventually released his grip around Grijalva's neck. Defendant stepped away from Grijalva and sighed. Defendant was placed in handcuffs and taken to an administrative isolation room in a different unit to separate him from Grijalva. As he was escorted to the other unit, defendant yelled that he had been attacked and needed a medical assessment.
Grijalva was taken to an urgent care center and treated for bruises, swelling, pain, and scratches around his neck.
Defendant later filed a patient abuse claim against Grijalva; it was not sustained.
DEFENSE EVIDENCE
The defense also called several staff members to testify about the charged offense and defendant's prior incidents in the unit. We focus on Officer Clark's testimony since he addressed the primary issue on appeal.
Officer Michael Clark testified that he once escorted defendant from Unit 9 to a medical appointment that was within the hospital but outside the unit. Clark could not remember when this happened. During the escort, they were walking on the hospital grounds and defendant started talking to other patients who were not housed in Unit 9.
Officer Clark testified that Sergeant Corona instructed him to return defendant to the locked unit without receiving medical treatment. There was a confrontation between defendant and the sergeant. Clark followed the sergeant's orders and escorted defendant back to his unit.
Exhibit No. 40
Officer Clark testified that right after he returned defendant to the unit, defendant showed him a document and said he had the right to talk to other patients. The document was introduced at trial as exhibit No. 40. It was a memo from Daniel Wagoner, a patients' rights advocate, and it was dated September 28, 2011. It stated:
" 'If you have information about a medical appointment that was denied because you talked to someone on the way to the appointment, you should bring this to our attention so we can look into and address the matter further.' "
The memo also stated:
" 'We were told that what was said to you is not the policy of the unit. It was acknowledged by program management that if this action occurred, it would be an action of abuse, punitive withholding or unreasonable denial of patient's right to medical care and treatment.' "
Officer Clark testified he asked other officers about the policy and the memo. Clark testified his sergeant said that the locked unit's patients could not speak to other hospital patients. Clark testified he also asked Grijalva, the unit supervisor, and he said that the unit's patients could speak with other patients.
Officer Clark testified he believed patients from the unit could talk to other hospital patients, but they could not have physical contact with them. Clark testified that he was acting as a fill-in officer when he escorted defendant to the medical appointment, and he was not familiar with the unit's rules. Clark conceded defendant's memo addressed whether a patient could be denied medical treatment because he spoke to another patient.
Officer Tony Marsh testified that he was regularly assigned to Unit 9 and he was familiar with its rules, including that the patients could not speak to other hospital patients when they were escorted out of the locked unit. He never heard about any contrary directives on that point. Marsh testified that Officer Clark was a "float" officer, and only worked in the locked unit as necessary.
DEFENDANT'S TESTIMONY
Defendant testified he was civilly committed to Coalinga State Hospital. He was convicted of two counts of robbery in 1988, and another two counts of robbery in 1991.
December 2011 incident
Defendant testified about the December 2011 incident, when Grijalva told him that he could not eat in the unit's day room. Defendant told Grijalva that he had done so before. Grijalva tried to take his food away. Defendant testified he did not agree with Grijalva's statements about the rule.
Defendant testified he picked up his food and tried to walk away. Grijalva followed, stepped in front of him, and took away the food. Defendant testified he "just clicked off" and made "a foolish mistake," and hit Grijalva. The staff took him down to the floor. Defendant tried to tell the staff that he was still chewing food and could not swallow. He was accused of trying to spit food at Grijalva. He was taken to the restraint room.
At trial, the defense introduced a videotape that showed this incident.
Defendant testified he was taken to jail because of this incident. He pleaded guilty to an offense because he used bad judgment and hit Grijalva.
May 2012 incident
Defendant testified he returned to the hospital in May 2012. Defendant thought he would be placed in another unit to avoid Grijalva, but he was again housed in the locked unit. Defendant told the staff members that he felt in danger from Grijalva, and he believed Grijalva was going to retaliate against him for the prior assault.
Defendant admitted that after he was returned to the hospital in May 2012, he got into a fist fight with another patient in the unit because they argued about what to watch on television.
Defendant testified about the incident in May 2012, when Grijavla said he was in the out-of-bounds hallway within the unit. Defendant admitted that he was told that he could not walk into the out-of-bounds area and it was clearly marked. Defendant thought the rule did not apply to him because it was time to leave for lunch, and the patients were always escorted through the adjacent door.
Grijalva told defendant that he could not wait in the hallway for the staff escort. Defendant accused Grijalva of suddenly changing the daily procedures.
Defendant kept questioning Grijalva about why he was changing the rules, but he did not give an answer. Defendant decided to walk out of the restricted area. Defendant turned his back on Grijalva, but looked over his shoulder to say something to him. Grijalva suddenly grabbed defendant, and other staff members helped push defendant against the wall.
Defendant testified that Grijavla and Dr. Moto placed his arms behind his back and in handcuffs. Things got rough and he was forced to bend forward.
The defense introduced a videotape of this incident.
Defendant was placed in the seclusion room and complained of left shoulder and wrist pain. Defendant testified he did not struggle with anyone and did not know why Grijalva placed him in restraints.
At some later point, defendant received medical treatment and was diagnosed with a torn rotator cuff in his left shoulder.
Defendant testified he told staff members that he was afraid of Grijalva, that Grijalva instigated the incident, and that he felt Grijalva was going to continue to harm him.
The charged offense
Defendant admitted he assaulted Grijalva in the dining room in June 2012. Defendant testified that after he finished his meal that day, he walked to the doorway and saw a patient he knew. This patient was not housed in the unit. Defendant talked to this man for about a minute, and defendant was standing inside the doorway.
Defendant admitted Grijalva told him he could not speak to the other patient. Defendant told Grijalva that he had documentation from a patients' rights group that said he could talk to other patients. At trial, defendant identified exhibit No. 40 as the document he was referring to when he made this statement to Grijavla.
Defendant testified Grijalva said he did not care about his documentation. Grijalva said he was going to redirect defendant back to the unit because defendant was not supposed to be talking to another patient.
Defendant testified Officer Arredondo was present. Defendant told the officer that he previously had problems with Grijalva and felt Grijalva was trying to create a situation with him. Defendant told Arredondo that he had a memo that said he could talk to other patients. Defendant also told the officer that Grijalva had created an incident against him in December 2011, and "as a result of that, I lost my composure and I had struck him." Defendant felt Grijalva was using this current incident "to get back at me."
Defendant testified that after he made these statements to Officer Arredondo, Grijalva tried to grab his arm. Defendant put down his coffee cup to avoid being accused of spilling it on Grijalva. He also took off his glasses because his prior pair had been damaged by the "over aggressiveness of staff."
Defendant claimed he moved toward the wall to put some "distance" between them, but Grijalva followed him. Grijalva told defendant he was going to redirect him to the unit. Defendant said not to touch him.
Defendant asked Officer Arredondo to intervene and said if Grijalva touched him, he was going to treat it as an "assault on my person, and I was going to use whatever force necessary to prevent this man from harming me because he had already hurt me in the past."
Defendant testified that Grijalva grabbed his arm. Defendant admitted he grabbed Grijalva's neck. Defendant claimed he was trying to push Grijalva away from him, but Grijalva did not release his hand so defendant "pushed him all the way back to the wall." Defendant denied that he was trying to choke Grijalva, and he could not remember putting both hands around his neck. Defendant admitted that he wanted to "beat the crap out of the man," but claimed he was just trying to "hold him off" so Grijalva could not harm him. Defendant released his hold from Grijalva when the other staff arrived because he "had no reason to fear any more that he would personally injure me." Defendant was held against the wall and placed in handcuffs.
Defendant testified that as he was escorted back to the unit, he told the staff that he had a document from the patients' rights group that said he could talk to other patients, again referring to the document identified as exhibit No. 40. When he reached his room, he showed the document to the officers.
Exhibit No. 40
Defendant testified about how he received the document identified as exhibit No. 40. In 2011, when he was housed in the locked unit, defendant filed a complaint with the patients' rights group stating that he had been told patients in the locked unit could never speak to other hospital patients while being escorted outside the unit on the hospital's premises. In response to his complaint, he received the memo identified as exhibit No. 40. He believed the memo stated he could talk to other hospital patients at all times since his complaint had been made on "all issues."
On direct examination, defendant conceded that the memo (exhibit No. 40) only referred to situations where patients in the locked unit were being escorted out of the unit to medical appointments. Defendant testified he believed the memo's directives applied to additional situations in the hospital, and it was illegal for the hospital to impose a rule that violated the state and federal laws known as the patients' bill of rights and prevent them from speaking to other people.
On cross-examination, defendant conceded that when he was initially transferred into the unit, he was instructed that he was not allowed to speak to other patients outside of the locked unit. After he read the patient bill of rights, however, he believed the rule was wrong because it violated his rights.
Procedural history
As noted above, defendant was charged with count I, assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)); with the special allegations that he had eight prior strike convictions.
On September 28, 2015, defendant's jury trial began. On October 1, 2015, the court declared a mistrial.
On December 2, 2015, defendant's second jury trial began.
On December 14, 2015, the jury found defendant not guilty of count I, but guilty of the lesser included offense of misdemeanor simple assault (§ 240).
On the same day, the court denied probation and sentenced defendant to serve 180 days in jail and pay a restitution fine of $150. The parties stipulated that defendant's credits for time served exceeded the sentence imposed, and the court ordered defendant released for time served.
On December 15, 2015, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
Defendant raises one issue on appeal. He contends the court violated his due process right to present a defense because it denied his pretrial motion to introduce evidence about the hospital's regulations that gave him the right to speak to other patients. Defendant argues this evidence would have shown that Grijalva illegally prevented him from speaking to other patients, and Grijalva used the illegal regulations as a pretext to use force against defendant during the prior incidents and the charged offense.
As we will explain, the court initially excluded any evidence about defendant's understanding of the hospital's regulations. As the trial proceeded, however, the court reconsidered its ruling and granted defendant's motion to introduce certain evidence on this topic.
A. The Court's Discretion to Admit Evidence
We begin with the well-settled rules on the court's discretion to admit evidence. Only relevant evidence is admissible. All relevant evidence is admissible unless it is excluded under the United States or California Constitution or by statute. (People v. Scheid (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1, 13-14.) Evidence Code section 210 defines relevant evidence as "having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action." The test of relevance is whether the proffered evidence tends to logically, naturally, or by reasonable inference establish material facts such as identity, intent, or motive. (People v. Scheid, supra, at p. 13.)
Under Evidence Code section 352, the trial court may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability its admission will create substantial danger of undue prejudice. (People v. Montes (2014) 58 Cal.4th 809, 862; People v. Ramirez (2006) 39 Cal.4th 398, 453-454.)
However, the trial court has the inherent power to rehear and reconsider its evidentiary rulings. (Jackson v. Superior Court (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1051, 1066; People v. Castello (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1246-1248.)
The court's evidentiary rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. (People v. Suff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1013, 1066.) As a general matter, the ordinary rules of evidence do not impermissibly infringe on the defendant's constitutional right to present a defense. (People v. Fudge (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1075, 1122; People v. Boyette (2002) 29 Cal.4th 381, 414.)
B. Defendant's Pretrial Evidentiary Motion
Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion to introduce evidence about the hospital regulations to show that Grijalva fabricated the rules as an excuse to use unnecessary force against defendant, during the prior incidents and the charged offense. Defendant argued the hospital's actual regulations were relevant to rebut People's expected claim that defendant violated rules, show that defendant had not violated the rules in the past, and Grijalva used his own version of the rules as a pretext to use force against defendant.
The court conducted a pretrial hearing on defendant's motion. Defendant asserted that he would show Grijalva fabricated various rules as an excuse to use unnecessary force against him during the current and prior incidents, particularly about whether defendant could speak to other patients. Defendant argued that evidence about the hospital's actual rules was relevant to rebut the People's argument that defendant violated the hospital's rules, show that Grijalva exceeded his authority, and support his self-defense claim since he feared that Grijalva's alleged missuse of regulations would place him in danger. Defendant further argued that the denial of his evidentiary motion would violate his due process right to present a defense.
The court questioned whether such evidence was relevant because "if there is conduct that is inappropriate, it is the conduct that is at issue, not the regulations." Defense counsel replied that Grijalva used the regulations as an excuse to apply force to restrain defendant, "[s]o we have to show those regulations and that he used those inappropriately."
The prosecutor explained the history of the locked unit, and that it had different rules because it housed the hospital's more violent patients. The prosecutor stated that the People's evidence would be limited to the specific rule that defendant violated when he spoke to the patient in the dining room, just before he tackled Grijavla.
The prosecutor argued the proposed defense evidence was not probative and would just be used to try and blame Grijalva for being assaulted. The prosecutor argued that if the defense introduced additional evidence about the regulations, then the People would call "a slew of witnesses" who drafted the rules when the locked unit was created.
The court asked defense counsel what he proposed to introduce. Counsel said he wanted to be able to rebut the People's arguments, and show defendant had the right to talk to other people outside the unit and Grijalva used the rules as an excuse to discipline defendant.
The court believed the proposed defense evidence was not relevant. "To me it seems that if Mr. Grijalva used force against [defendant], then the question is, to what extent force was used by Mr. Grijalva and to what extent the force was used by [defendant], as to whether [defendant] has the right to lawfully claim self-defense. This is not an issue about regulations, it is about what took place factually."
The court asked defense counsel how he proposed to introduce evidence about the regulations. Counsel said, "We have a person from the facility that will - I will ask questions of. She has a background of help forming some of the regulations and how they change over time. They bring copies of the regulations."
The court asked the prosecutor if he was aware of this possible witness. The prosecutor said he was not sure who the defense attorney was referring to. Defense counsel said: "He doesn't know. He has his own witnesses that will address regulations, apparently, and I have mine."
Defendant did not make an offer of proof to show the exact evidence he intended to introduce on this issue.
The prosecutor again explained that there were special rules for patients in the locked that were different from the regulations for the general hospital population. Defense counsel replied: "Those regulations to the extent they contradict with unit 9 regulations we don't think are valid. So we will be invalidating the [Unit 9] regulations if [the prosecutor] produces evidence that somehow they had a right to keep them from talking ...." (Italics added.)
Defense counsel also intended to introduce evidence that defendant filed a complaint with the patients' rights advocate before the charged incident, and received a document that stated he was allowed to talk to another patient while being taken for a medical appointment. In making this argument, defense counsel was referring to the document that was later marked as exhibit No. 40. Defense counsel argued that "extrapolating" from that "ruling," "we feel he can and does have the right to associate with other people." Counsel argued that to the extent that the unit's rules were different from the general hospital regulations, "they're not legal."
C. The Court's Pretrial Ruling
The court held that defendant's proposed evidence about the hospital's regulations did not raise disputed questions for the jury and was not relevant to what took place around the charged offense. The court denied defendant's motion to introduce this evidence: "[I]t appears to the Court that the issue is the conduct, not the regulations, not the alleged justification for the conduct. So I don't see where the regulations are relevant."
"It appears to the Court that the regulations -- and if it turns into, as it seems that it would be, a battle of the interpreters of those regulations, it would amount to an undue consumption of time and would lead to confusing the jurors as to the ultimate issue in this case, and that is, what took place on June 25th, 2012, whether Mr. Grijalva put his hands on Mr. Smith and in response to that Mr. Smith acted in self-defense. That's what this comes down to, what was the conduct. Not what was the -- allegedly the basis for Mr. Grijalva allegedly placing his hands on Mr. Smith.
"So at this point, the Court is going to exercise its discretion under Evidence Code section 352 and preclude any reference of regulations and whether or not Mr. Grijalva, or for that matter Mr. Smith, was acting in violation of any regulation at the time of June 25th, 2012."
The court stated that it had "considered the relevance, or the stated relevance of this testimony, the allegations in this case, the time estimate for the trial, and the representation as to how this evidence will be presented, the Court finds that it would amount to an undue consumption of time and would, in this Court's mind, clearly confuse the jurors as to the issues in this case."
Defense counsel asked whether the People could introduce evidence about the rules. The prosecutor replied that he intended to call a witness who would testify that defendant was not supposed to be talking to someone who was not a patient in the unit, he tried to redirect defendant, and what happened after that. Defense counsel again argued he should be allowed to show that the rules were different.
The court clarified the evidentiary ruling:
"[THE COURT:] If the presentation is as [the prosecutor] says, where he simply asks someone what took place, and he is not getting into what regulations he may have been -- Mr. Grijalva may have been acting under, or believing he was acting under, then I see no difficulty with that presentation. And if you on cross-examination were to ask him about whether that was his understanding, that Mr. Smith was not allowed to
speak to others, I don't see any difficulty with that. [¶] But whether -- again, whether he is allowed to speak to others or not allowed to speak to others to me does not have much of a bearing on one person putting their hands on the other and how that person responds. That's the ultimate issue in this case.
"[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: So I would not be allowed to identify his source of the regulations and that he was advised by [defendant] that he was - [defendant] had regulations that were contrary to his thinking?
"THE COURT: I would think that would be acceptable. If there was a disagreement as to what the regulations read. But that wouldn't require, in this Court's mind, the presentation of competing interpretations by other witnesses, meaning the person you were talking about and the numbers of persons that [the prosecutor] was considering bringing to explain to the jurors who is right as to their interpretation of the regulations. To me, I see that as a side issue, which would not be relevant to the ultimate issue in this case as to whether [defendant's] alleged use of force was unlawful...."
The court again said it did not want the trial to "turn into a battle of alleged experts as to interpretation of regulations. Because that is not really what is at issue here."
D. Defendant's Renewed Evidentiary Motion
When defendant's jury trial began, Grijalva testified as the first prosecution witness about the two prior incidents and the charged offense. In doing so, Grijalva testified that it was against the unit's rules for the patients to talk to other hospital patients, to eat in the unit's day room, and to walk in the out-of-bounds hallway.
After Grijalva's testimony, defense counsel complained outside the jury's presence that the prosecutor had "permanently planted within the jury's mind" that defendant was not allowed to talk to other people in the hospital. Defense counsel renewed his motion to introduce evidence to dispute the People's claim about the hospital's rules, "not for the truth, but for evidence of what [defendant] knew about the situation."
Defense counsel moved to introduce the document identified as exhibit No. 40 and said he had already shown it to the prosecutor. Defense counsel argued the document was relevant because it advised defendant that he could speak to other patients in certain situations.
The court examined exhibit No. 40 and stated it was a memo from the California Office of Patients' Rights, dated September 28, 2011. It was apparently prepared in response to a complaint filed by defendant on September 7, 2011, that he had been told the locked unit patients going to a medical appointment could not talk with anyone and would lose their medical treatment if they did so.
As explained above, the memo identified as exhibit No. 40 stated: " 'If you have information about a medical appointment that was denied because you talked to someone on the way to the appointment, you should bring this to our attention so we can look into and address the matter further.' " The memo also stated: " 'We were told that what was said to you is not the policy of the unit. It was acknowledged by program management that if this action occurred, it would be an action of abuse, punitive withholding or unreasonable denial of patient's right to medical care and treatment.' " --------
The prosecutor argued that Exhibit No. 40 was not relevant because it addressed situations where a patient from Unit 9 spoke to another patient while being escorted to a medical appointment, and that situation did not occur in this case. Defense counsel argued it was "a reasonable extrapolation" for defendant to rely on this memo and conclude that he could also talk to other people in other circumstances.
E. The Court's Revised Ruling
After hearing the arguments, the court modified its pretrial evidentiary ruling and granted defendant's motion to introduce exhibit No. 40 and defendant's belief about the hospital's regulations:
"THE COURT: I still believe that its relevance is highly questionable. Because, again, whether [defendant] is allowed to talk or not allowed to talk with others, that doesn't explain the conduct that's alleged, that he is charged with in this case. It has really nothing to do with that. You can -- a person can allow that he is allowed to talk to others and that Mr. Grijalva acted entirely inappropriately in allegedly placing his hand on [defendant]. But the question is whether -- whether that constitutes --
whether that amounted to self-defense on the part of Mr. Smith and his response to what was done.
"So it's not particularly relevant in this Court's mind. But I will provide that there have been a few witnesses who testified that it was their understanding that [defendant] and others on unit 9 were not allowed to talk to non-unit 9 patients. To that extent, it may amount to -- it may be used for impeachment as to what those witnesses have testified to. But most of the witnesses have testified it was their understanding based upon what they had been told by Mr. Grijalva. It is not clear about when that statement was made, allegedly made by Mr. Grijalva to them or whether they received that information from any other member of staff at the hospital.
"So given the state of the evidence as it is now, the Court will allow the Defense to present the proposition that [defendant] may have been allowed to speak to non-unit 9 patients as a counter to the evidence that's already been presented, that he was not allowed to do so."
1. Subsequent Trial Evidence
As set forth above, the defense introduced the document identified as exhibit No. 40 when Officer Clark testified. Defendant testified that he believed this memo permitted him to speak to patients outside the unit. Other witnesses testified that the memo was restricted to situations where the unit patients were escorted to medical appointment, and provided that the patients could not be denied medical treatment for violating the rule that they could not speak to other patients outside the unit.
Also in response to the court's revised ruling, the prosecutor extensively cross-examined defense witness Matt Collins about the creation of the locked unit, his participation in drafting the special rules for that unit, and that the rules had not been changed since the unit was created in 2011.
F. Analysis
On appeal, defendant argues that evidence about Grijalva's alleged "misuse of hospital regulations" was admissible to show that Grijalva "concocted hospital regulations as an excuse to engage in aggressive behavior and provoke a physical response" from defendant. Defendant contends the court's pretrial ruling was prejudicial based on the prosecutor's closing argument, where he cited defendant's alleged violation of rules to refute his claim of self-defense. In making these arguments, however, defendant fails to address the procedural history of the court's evidentiary ruling and its subsequent decision to admit the document identified as exhibit No. 40.
We first note the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it initially denied defendant's pretrial evidentiary motion. Defense counsel initially stated that he would introduce evidence about the hospital's regulations, and that Grijalva allegedly fabricated different rules as a pretext to discipline defendant. During the course of the pretrial hearing, however, defense counsel clarified that he was not going to show that the unit's special rules did not exist. Instead, he intended to show that the unit's more restrictive rules were illegal because they conflicted with the hospital's general regulations, defendant was subject to the general regulations for all hospital patients, and he was allowed to speak to anyone in the hospital. In support of his pretrial motion, defendant cited the document later identified as exhibit No. 40, as evidence that defendant was allowed to speak to other patients.
However, the charged offense was limited to a single incident in the patient dining room, where defendant refused to comply with a verbal order given by a staff supervisor to stop speaking to another patient, and defendant then tackled and tried to choke supervisor. As the court noted, the validity of that particular rule was not relevant to defendant's conduct and the force he used against Grijalva at that time.
As the prosecution presented its case, the court reconsidered its evidentiary ruling given the testimony about defendant's prior incidents and the charged offense, and that defendant had violated particular rules applicable to the locked unit patients such as not eating in certain areas, entering a restricted hallway, and speaking to patients outside the unit. In light of this evidence, the court decided to grant defendant's motion to introduce the memo identified as exhibit No. 40, and testimony about defendant's belief that the memo applied to all of defendant's interactions at the hospital, and he was not subject to the unit's more restrictive rules.
Thereafter, defendant extensively testified about his own belief regarding the hospital's rules, and that he believed the interpretation contained in exhibit No. 40 allowed him to speak to other patients. Defendant also disputed Grijalva's descriptions of the prior incidents, and explained that he was afraid of Grijalva during the incident in the dining room based upon Grijalva's alleged improperly use of force against him during the prior incidents. Defendant also introduced the testimony of Officer Clark about his review of exhibit No. 40 and how he received conflicting responses from other hospital staff about whether a patient from the unit could speak to other patients.
The jury was thus aware that defendant was advised of a ruling that he believed allowed him to speak to other patients. However, that ruling expressly applied to situations where a patient from the locked unit was being escorted to a medical appointment, and only provided that the patient could not be denied medical care if he violated that rule. The impact of the memo was rebutted by the testimony from Collins, who was called as a defense witness but testified on cross-examination about the creation of the special rules for the unit, and how those rules were intended to address problems with the more physically aggressive and violent patients who were housed in that unit.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.