People v. Brown CA6
H040734
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 18, 2016Background
- Defendant William Odessa Brown was convicted by a jury of assault with a deadly weapon for swinging a box cutter toward coworker Valente Ramirez during a workplace dispute.
- Defendant testified and was impeached with (1) a 2012 Texas felony elder-abuse conviction and (2) his vitamin-manufacturer job application, which left the felony-conviction question blank while certifying no withheld information.
- The trial court admitted the Texas conviction for impeachment and allowed the job-application evidence for impeachment; defense counsel did not object to either admission on the asserted grounds now raised on appeal.
- After a court trial on priors, the court found defendant had earlier 1998 felony convictions (voluntary manslaughter and assault) and found true enhancements: one five-year prior serious felony enhancement (§ 667(a)(1)) and a one-year prior prison-term enhancement (§ 667.5(b)).
- Defendant appealed, arguing ineffective assistance for failing to object to the Texas-conviction impeachment (moral turpitude contention) and to the job-application impeachment (Evid. Code § 352 prejudice); he also challenged imposition of both enhancements based on the same prior prosecution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Texas elder-abuse conviction for impeachment | People: conviction is a prior felony admitting impeachment under the California Constitution; trial court properly exercised Evid. Code § 352 discretion | Brown: Texas conviction is not a crime involving moral turpitude (Castro) and therefore inadmissible for impeachment | Court: Under Castro’s least-adjudicated-elements test, Tex. Penal Code § 22.04(a) requires recklessness (conscious disregard) and thus involves moral turpitude; counsel not ineffective for failing to object |
| Admissibility of job-application omission for impeachment | People: omission plus certification supports an inference of dishonesty and is relevant to truthfulness; probative value outweighs prejudice | Brown: omission is not an affirmative lie and defense had disclosed the conviction previously to the temp agency; trial court failed to perform a § 352 balancing | Court: evidence was relevant and probative; defense counsel’s failure to object under § 352 was not prejudicial — objection likely would have been overruled |
| Use of Texas conviction as Evidence Code § 1101 character evidence | People: not offered under § 1101; used solely for impeachment | Brown: trial court never resolved prosecutor's § 1101 motion | Court: prosecutor did not rely on § 1101; no error in failing to resolve that motion |
| Dual sentence enhancements based on same prior prosecution | People: prior serious-felony enhancement and prior prison-term enhancement both were imposed | Brown: improper to enhance both for the same prior conviction/prior prosecution | Court: People concede the error; judgment modified to strike the one-year § 667.5(b) enhancement |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Castro, 38 Cal.3d 301 (establishes moral-turpitude and § 352 limits on prior-conviction impeachment)
- People v. Ledesma, 43 Cal.3d 171 (ineffective-assistance prejudice standard)
- People v. Sanders, 10 Cal.App.4th 1268 (felony requiring only passive conduct may not involve moral turpitude)
- People v. Feaster, 102 Cal.App.4th 1084 (felony involving willful/dispositive conduct can involve moral turpitude)
- People v. Jones, 5 Cal.4th 1142 (prohibits enhancing sentence both for a prior conviction and for the prison term imposed for that conviction)
- People v. Kipp, 26 Cal.4th 1100 (discusses trial court’s broad discretion under Evid. Code § 352 in admitting impeachment evidence)
- People v. Harris, 47 Cal.3d 1047 (treatment of Evid. Code § 787 and relevance of specific-act evidence in criminal cases)