People v. Fraser CA4/3
G059111
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 23, 2021Background
- In March 2015 Fraser stabbed Pedro Toro; Toro died from a neck wound that lacerated the carotid artery and jugular. Fraser admitted the stabbing at trial but asserted self-defense. The jury convicted him of second degree murder and found he personally used a deadly weapon.
- Law enforcement and hospital photographs (bloody car interior, wounds, hospital/autopsy images) were the subject of repeated in limine and trial objections; the court admitted several photos and excluded at least one similar image.
- A pocketknife was found in Toro’s pocket; another cutting tool was found in Debra’s car. Fraser turned himself in the day after the stabbing.
- The information alleged multiple priors, including a 2005 assault with a deadly weapon strike; Fraser had an extensive criminal history and was on parole when the instant offense occurred.
- On appeal Fraser argued (1) admission of graphic photographs was unduly prejudicial under Evidence Code §352, (2) the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to strike his prior strike under Penal Code §1385(a), and (3) the court erred by refusing to strike the additional punishment for that enhancement under §1385(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Fraser) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of bloody/graphic photographs (Evidence Code §352) | Photos were relevant to prove injuries, savageness of attack, witness credibility and contested elements; exclusion not required. | Photographs were irrelevant to disputed issues, unduly prejudicial, cumulative and gratuitously inflammatory. | No abuse of discretion; appellant waived review by not including photos in record, and transcript descriptions show probative value outweighed prejudice. |
| Waiver for appellate review of photographs / burden of record | Court may rely on presumption of correctness; appellant must supply photos on appeal to challenge admission. | Argued photos were so inflammatory they require reversal despite record omission. | Waived: appellant failed to include photos in appellate record so cannot show trial court erred. |
| Refusal to strike prior strike under §1385(a) / Romero discretion | Court properly considered nature of present offense, priors, background and prospects and reasonably declined to strike; three-strikes presumption applies. | Prior was remote (16 years) and court should have exercised discretion to strike in interest of justice. | No abuse of discretion; court considered relevant factors and reasonably declined to strike. |
| Refusal to strike additional punishment for enhancement under §1385(b) | Same as for §1385(a): discretion exercised reasonably; remoteness and mercy arguments insufficient. | Requested striking additional punishment under §1385(b) even if strike under (a) denied. | No abuse of discretion; court permissibly declined to strike enhancement punishment. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Allen, 42 Cal.3d 1222 (photograph admissibility lies largely within trial court discretion)
- People v. Falsetta, 21 Cal.4th 903 (evidence so prejudicial as to render trial fundamentally unfair is required to violate due process)
- Jameson v. Desta, 5 Cal.5th 594 (appellate presumption of correctness; appellant bears burden to present record showing trial error)
- People v. Heard, 31 Cal.4th 946 (victim photographs are relevant even if defendant did not contest cause of death; show savageness and nature of attack)
- People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (standards for exercising §1385/Romero discretion; strong presumption favoring three-strikes sentence)
- People v. Farnam, 28 Cal.4th 107 (photographs showing manner of wounding relevant to malice and intent)
- People v. Marsh, 175 Cal.App.3d 987 (distinguishing gratuitously inflammatory or posed autopsy photos)