People v. Avila, 59 Cal. 4th 496

Five-year-old Samantha Runnion abducted July 15, 2002; body found July 16 near Lake Elsinore; autopsy shows vaginal and anal sexual assault, head trauma, and asphyxiation as cause of death.
Defendant Alejandro Avila lived in Lake Elsinore; DNA consistent with Samantha found in his car; DNA under victim’s fingernails also matched Avila.
Evidence tied Avila to the crime via tire tracks, shoe prints, a potential match to a pair of Fila shoes, and his itinerary from a bank to a Temecula hotel on the night of the abduction.
Prosecution presented prior molestation of three young girls; two charges later acquitted; third case (Cara B.) presented; defendant’s statements post-acquittal suggested ongoing culpability.
Computer recovered at sister’s apartment contained child pornography; Prosecutor introduced related evidence under 1108; defense argued prejudice and alternative explanations.
Penalty phase included victim-impact testimony; defense presented extensive mitigation; rebuttal and surrebuttal on DNA and other evidence; court allowed certain other-crimes evidence under 1108 with limits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Change of venue denial	Publicity biased Orange County proceeding; prejudicial venue.	Venue should be moved due to pervasive publicity and prejudiced jury pool.	No reversible error; trial court did not abuse discretion; substantial publicity dissipated; voir dire controlled prejudice.
Additional peremptory challenges	Extra challenges needed to ensure fairness due to publicity.	Six jurors had exposure; additional challenges required to secure impartiality.	No error; six jurors properly deemed fair; no showing that extra challenges were necessary to secure a fair trial.
Admissibility of other-sex offenses under 1108	Evidence of prior molestations highly probative to show disposition and motive.	Acquitted prior offenses should be limited; risk of prejudice.	Admissible under 1108; substantial probative value outweighs prejudice; admissibility not limited by acquittals at guilt phase.
Admission of crime-scene photographs and child pornography evidence; victim impact	Photos and described materials illustrate motive and impact; probative for causation and aggravation.	Photographs prejudicial; limit or exclude erotic material; impact evidence excessive.	Photographs and described materials properly admitted under discretionary balancing; victim-impact evidence within permissible limits; cumulative prejudice not shown.

Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010) (presumption of prejudice only in extreme cases; pretrial publicity alone not enough)
Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966) (carnival atmosphere can deny due process; high bar for prejudice)
Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723 (1963) (local televised confession violated fair trial right)
Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1965) (circus atmosphere from extensive pretrial publicity)
People v. Rountree, 56 Cal.4th 823 (2013) (multifactor analysis for change of venue; juror impartiality emphasis)
People v. Falsetta, 21 Cal.4th 903 (1999) (governs admissibility of other-sex offenses under 1108 and balancing under 352)
People v. Story, 45 Cal.4th 1282 (2009) (importance of 1108 in admitting other-sex offenses; probative versus prejudice)
Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (1990) (collateral estoppel does not bar admissibility of other crimes evidence at guilt phase)
Santamaria, 8 Cal.4th 903 (1994) (collateral estoppel and admissibility standards for prior crimes)
Proctor, 4 Cal.4th 499 (1992) (juror impartiality and reliance on voir dire in publicity analysis)