People v. Brackins
249 Cal. Rptr. 3d 261
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2019Background
- Defendant Lionel Brackins convicted by jury of aggravated assault (Pen. Code § 245(a)(4)), corporal injury on a former cohabitant (§ 273.5(a)), attempted dissuading a witness (§ 136.1(b)(1)), and misdemeanor vandalism (§ 594). Sentence: four years. Judgment affirmed on appeal.
- Prosecution evidence included multiple prior domestic-violence incidents and testimony that defendant choked victim Janet Amezcua in August 2014; victim and their daughter (Jane) later minimized or recanted at trial.
- Defense theory: Amezcua lied or recanted for non-abuse reasons; defendant claimed protective/parental motives when he called the daughter and denied malicious intent; asked jury instruction CALCRIM No. 2622 be modified to add malice and a family-member presumption of no malice.
- Statutory issue: § 136.1(a) contains a malice element and a presumption that a family member acting to protect the witness acted without malice; § 136.1(b) (the charged count) does not contain a malice element.
- Court admitted expert testimony on intimate partner violence (Dr. Richard Ferry) and gave CALCRIM No. 850 limiting its use to evaluating the victim’s conduct and credibility; defense did not request modifications to CALCRIM No. 850 at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CALCRIM No. 2622 should be modified to require malice and include the § 136.1(a)(3) family-member presumption for a § 136.1(b) attempted-dissuade count | Prosecution: no modification; statute governs elements | Brackins: § 136.1(a) presumption (“for purposes of this section”) should apply to § 136.1(b), so malice must be proved and presumption applied | Court: Denied. § 136.1(b) lacks a malice element and the § 136.1(a)(3) presumption does not apply to subdivision (b) offenses. |
| Whether CALCRIM No. 850 improperly allowed expert testimony to be used as proof defendant committed the charged crimes | Prosecution: expert testimony lawful to explain victim behavior and evaluate credibility; limiting instruction given | Brackins: instruction invited jury to use expert testimony to infer abuse occurred and impermissibly affected ultimate issue; also sought limiting instruction as to child witness evidence | Court: Denied. Expert testimony may properly aid credibility evaluation; CALCRIM No. 850 properly limited use to evaluating victim Amezcua’s conduct and believability and precluded using it as proof defendant committed crimes or applying it to the child witness. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Brewer, 192 Cal.App.4th 457 (2011) (de novo review applies to statutory construction)
- People v. Manzo, 53 Cal.4th 880 (2012) (plain-language approach to statutory interpretation and legislative intent)
- People v. Arriaga, 58 Cal.4th 950 (2014) (omission of language in related statutory provisions indicates different legislative intent)
- In re Ethan C., 54 Cal.4th 610 (2012) (inclusion of language in one statutory provision and omission in another supports purposive interpretation)
- People v. Young, 34 Cal.4th 1149 (2005) (specific intent required for § 136.1 offenses)
- People v. Humphrey, 13 Cal.4th 1073 (1996) (expert testimony on battered woman syndrome may be relevant to witness credibility)