People v. Hendrix
214 Cal. App. 4th 216
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Hendrix convicted of resisting an executive officer under Penal Code 69; sentencing six years in state prison after a second bench trial on prior-incidents evidence.
- First trial ended in mistrial; in limine, court allowed two prior incidents (1993, 2005) to be admitted for knowledge/mistake purpose over objection.
- Two other prior incidents (a, c, d) were excluded as too prejudicial or not probative.
- Trial evidence showed defendant resisted Officer Mosley during pursuit at Countrywood; the defense contended lack of knowledge he was dealing with police.
- Trial court admitted 1993 and 2005 incidents with limiting instructions; appellate court held admission erroneous and reversible, because similarities were insufficient and prejudice outweighed probative value.
- Court reverses judgment of conviction and remands for acquittal or new trial as appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility under Evidence Code 1101(b) for knowledge | People argued prior acts showed knowledge defendant knew officers were police | Hendrix argued incidents lacked similarity and probative value; risk of prejudice | Admissibility error; lack of substantial probative value; prejudicial under 352 |
| Materiality and relevance of knowledge vs. mistake | Prior incidents establish knowledge or absence of mistake to convict | Knowledge/mistake theory not sufficiently supported by compelling similarity | Knowledge/mistake evidence improperly admitted; insufficient similarity to support probative value |
| Harmless error analysis | Admission of incidents did not prejudice jury | Error prejudicial; reasonable probability of different verdict | Not harmless; reversal required |
| Limitings instructions and prejudice control | Instruction properly limited use to knowledge/mistake | Limiting instruction insufficient to prevent prejudice | Limiting instruction inadequate to cure error; reversal stood |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Ewoldt, 7 Cal.4th 380 (Cal. 1994) (extremely careful analysis for uncharged offenses; prejudice balance)
- People v. Lindberg, 45 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2008) (abuse of discretion review; 1101(b) probative value and prejudice)
- People v. Balcom, 7 Cal.4th 414 (Cal. 1994) (probative value vs. prejudice; cumulative effect)
- People v. Kelly, 42 Cal.4th 763 (Cal. 2007) (factors for admissibility under 1101(b) and 352 balancing)
- Thompson v. California, 27 Cal.3d 303 (Cal. 1980) (intermediate facts; materiality concept for evidentiary purposes)
- U.S. v. Vo, 413 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2005) (knowledge as absence of mistake; similarity not always required)