People v. Ennis
190 Cal. App. 4th 721
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- William Cook Ennis II was convicted of multiple sexual offenses involving his eight-year-old daughter and his fourteen-year-old stepdaughter, with an aggregate 64-year sentence.
- Appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing the testimony was inherently improbable and unreliable.
- The trial admitted uncharged acts under Evidence Code § 1108 and excluded proffered expert testimony about police interrogation if any.
- The jury convicted on most counts after witnesses K., C., and C.S. testified; C. later recanted portions of her accusations.
- The court permitted evidence of additional Arizona offenses with similar victims, argued to be probative of propensity under § 1108, while considering 352 prejudice.
- Appellant waived some challenges by not objecting to certain prosecutorial remarks or by not renewing evidentiary objections at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the proof under inherent improbability | Ennis contends testimony is inherently improbable and unreliable. | Evidence is inherently improbable and cannot support convictions. | Evidence not inherently improbable; credibility left to jury. |
| Admission of uncharged acts under Evidence Code § 1108 | Arizona acts probative of propensity; similar victims and witnesses support charged crimes. | Evidence is unduly prejudicial and lacks probative value. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; admission weighed probative value against prejudice—no reversible error. |
| Exclusion/forfeiture of expert testimony on police interviews | Expert testimony about interview techniques could affect reliability of statements. | Court should allow such expert testimony. | Issue waived; no final ruling preserved due to abandonment of the matter. |
| Prosecutorial conduct in closing—standard of proof and admonitions | Prosecutor implied a lower standard of proof; comments were improper. | No timely objection; comments insufficient to warrant reversal. | Waived; failure to object or request admonitions precludes review. |
| Impact of witness credibility on appellate review | Witness credibility should be reassessed on appeal due to recantations and inconsistencies. | Jury credibility determinations are final; appellate reassessment is improper. | Appellate review defers to jury credibility; no reversal for inherently improbable testimony. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Hovarter, 44 Cal.4th 983 (Cal. 2008) (doubts about witness credibility are generally for the jury)
- People v. Mayfield, 14 Cal.4th 668 (Cal. 1997) (credibility issues left to jury in most cases)
- People v. Cudjo, 6 Cal.4th 585 (Cal. 1993) (credibility and weight for trial court/ jury)
- People v. Huston, 21 Cal.2d 690 (Cal. 1943) (inherently improbable witness claim requires face-impossibility)
- People v. Thompson, 49 Cal.4th 79 (Cal. 2010) (rejected inherent incredibility based on inconsistencies)
- DiQuisto v. County of Santa Clara, 181 Cal.App.4th 236 (Cal. App. 2010) (evidence weaknesses affect credibility, not reversal absent inherent improbability)
- People v. Falsetta, 21 Cal.4th 903 (Cal. 1999) (addressing 1108 balancing test against 352 prejudice)
- People v. Ewoldt, 7 Cal.4th 380 (Cal. 1994) (uncharged-offense testimony and its impact on credibility)
- People v. Gionis, 9 Cal.4th 119 (Cal. 1999) (emotional bias considerations in 352 analysis)
- People v. Holloway, 33 Cal.4th 96 (Cal. 2004) (tentative evidentiary rulings require renewal to preserve issue)
- In re S.A., 182 Cal.App.4th 1128 (Cal. App. 2010) (rejection of inherent improbability in juvenile abuse case)
- Carvalho, 112 Cal.App.2d 482 (Cal. App. 1952) (accepting acts as true but not supporting captivity/showing impossibility)
- U.S. v. Chancey, 715 F.2d 543 (11th Cir. 1983) (similar reasoning to Carvalho on absence of captivity)