89 Cal.App.5th 676
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- In March 2018 Latravius Gobert strangled his girlfriend, Mariah, in their home in front of their young daughter; autopsy and Gobert’s interrogation admissions supported homicide. A jury convicted him of second-degree murder; sentence 35 years-to-life.
- Prosecutor introduced testimony about two prior domestic-violence incidents: (1) coworker D.S. relayed Mariah said Gobert had smothered her with a pillow; (2) sister R.J. testified Mariah left and stayed in Las Vegas because she was "scared" after an argument with Gobert. Defense objected as hearsay.
- Trial court allowed the testimony, apparently treating Evidence Code §1109 as authorizing hearsay; the court limited R.J.’s testimony to avoid detailed out-of-court statements but admitted that Mariah had an argument and was scared.
- Gobert moved for Pitchess discovery about a lead investigator (Jennifer Higgins); at the in camera hearing the custodian produced four files but the trial judge declined to review two of them personally.
- On appeal the court held the hearsay admissions were erroneous but harmless under People v. Watson; the appellate court independently reviewed the sealed Pitchess materials, found no additional discoverable information, and found no prejudice.
- The clerk’s minute order included a lifelong prohibition on possessing "firearm, deadly weapon, ammunition, or related paraphernalia;" the Attorney General conceded that language exceeded the oral pronouncement. The court struck the minute-order language but upheld that Gobert received the required firearms relinquishment instruction/form.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Gobert’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of D.S.’s testimony that Mariah was smothered with a pillow (prior DV) | §1109 permits admission of prior domestic-violence evidence and trial court properly admitted it | §1109 is not a hearsay exception; D.S.’s statement is inadmissible hearsay | Admission was erroneous but harmless under Watson (no prejudice) |
| Admissibility of Mariah’s out-of-court statements to R.J. (why Mariah moved out) | Admissible under §1109 or as nonhearsay to explain R.J.’s conduct | Statements are hearsay when offered for propensity; nonhearsay use is not independently relevant here | Erroneous admission (hearsay); nonhearsay theory failed; error harmless under Watson |
| Standard of prejudice to apply (federal due process Chapman v. California vs. state-law Watson) | Generally Watson applies; no federal constitutional error | Chapman applies because admission of prior-acts evidence violated due process | Watson standard governs; reversal only if reasonably probable different outcome |
| Pitchess procedure and scope of in camera review | Custodian produced files; court’s in camera review should control; appellate review appropriate | Court failed to personally examine two produced files; Gobert sought independent review | Appellate court independently reviewed all four files, found no discoverable Brady/Pitchess material beyond what was disclosed; error harmless |
| Minute order language prohibiting possession of "deadly weapons" and "related paraphernalia" | Minute order language exceeded oral sentence and should be stricken; AG concedes | Strike the unauthorized minute-order language; firearms instruction/form not an unauthorized sentence | Court ordered minute order corrected (struck "deadly weapon" and "related paraphernalia"); firearms instruction upheld as properly provided via form and harmless if omitted orally |
Key Cases Cited
- Pitchess v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.3d 531 (Cal. 1974) (establishes discovery procedure for peace officer personnel records)
- People v. Mooc, 26 Cal.4th 1216 (Cal. 2001) (explains trial court’s in camera duties under Pitchess)
- People v. Gaines, 46 Cal.4th 172 (Cal. 2009) (trial court must review personnel records in camera and disclose discoverable material)
- Sisson v. Superior Court, 216 Cal.App.4th 24 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (trial court must personally examine produced records and inquire about withheld documents)
- People v. McKinnon, 52 Cal.4th 610 (Cal. 2011) (distinguishes hearsay vs. nonhearsay uses where hearer’s reaction is the point)
- People v. Livingston, 53 Cal.4th 1145 (Cal. 2012) (explains nonhearsay use where the effect on the listener is the relevant fact)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956) (state harmless-error standard for nonconstitutional evidentiary error)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (federal harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard for constitutional error)
- People v. Quintanilla, 45 Cal.App.5th 1039 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (noting §1109 is not a hearsay exception)
- People v. Megown, 28 Cal.App.5th 157 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (applies Watson to erroneous §1109 admissions)