People v. Brown
192 Cal. App. 4th 1222
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Brown was convicted of first degree murder for Bridget Colmore's death in 2001.
- Bridget disappeared after leaving Brown’s Visalia apartment; her body was later found buried in a cornfield.
- The trial court admitted prior domestic violence acts Brown committed against Bridget and four former girlfriends under Evidence Code § 1109(a)(1).
- The court held the evidence admissible under § 1109 and that murder could be considered an offense involving domestic violence under the statute.
- Brown challenged the admissibility, arguing murder is not an offense involving domestic violence and that § 1109 is not applicable to a murder prosecution.
- The appellate court affirmed, concluding § 1109 permits such propensity evidence in a murder prosecution given the relationship and circumstances, and that the court properly balanced probative value under § 352.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1109 permits prior domestic violence acts in a murder case | People contends § 1109 allows propensity evidence in murder prosecutions involving domestic violence. | Brown argues § 1109 applies only when the charged offense is a domestic violence offense. | Yes; § 1109 permits admissibility in murder prosecutions if the offense involves domestic violence. |
| Whether murder qualifies as an offense involving domestic violence under § 1109 | People contends murder, given the relationship and circumstances, falls within § 1109’s scope. | Brown contends murder is not enumerated as an offense involving domestic violence in the statute. | Yes; murder can constitute an offense involving domestic violence under § 1109 when supported by § 13700/Family Code definitions. |
| Whether Walker/Story require narrow application of § 1109 like § 1108 | People argues § 1109 parallels § 1108 in allowing use of propensity evidence in domestic violence contexts. | Brown relies on Walker and Story to restrict § 1109’s reach beyond enumerated offenses. | No; § 1109 is broader than § 1108's framework and § 1109 definitions rely on Penal Code § 13700 and Family Code § 6211, not the § 1108 structure. |
| Court’s § 352 balancing of probative value vs prejudice/time | People asserts substantial probative value of prior acts supports admission. | Brown contends the cumulative prejudice and delay outweigh any probative value. | The trial court properly weighed § 352 factors; admission was not an abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Johnson, 77 Cal.App.4th 410 (Cal. App. 2000) (admission of prior domestic violence in murder cases favored by policy)
- People v. Falsetta, 21 Cal.4th 903 (Cal. 1999) (propensity evidence in sex-offense contexts recognized; §1109 basis discussed)
- People v. Poplar, 70 Cal.App.4th 1129 (Cal. App. 1999) (reaffirmed §1109 approach; probado to include non-enumerated offenses)
- Story v. California, 45 Cal.4th 1282 (Cal. 2009) (sex-offense framework discussion informing §1109/1108 distinctions)
- Walker v. Superior Court, 139 Cal.App.4th 782 (Cal. App. 2006) (limits of §1108 interpretation; distinguishes §1109 context)
- People v. Reyes, 160 Cal.App.4th 246 (Cal. App. 2008) (overview of §1109/§1101 interplay in domestic-violence cases)