People v. Mani
74 Cal.App.5th 343
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2022Background
- On March 29, 2018, Mani broke into the Sacramento family home (where his mother and brother lived) while a restraining order against him was in effect; the brother saw Mani running up stairs holding a kitchen knife.
- Police captured Mani hiding nearby and recovered a bent kitchen knife; damage to the garage-to-house door was observed; no property was missing in the charged incident.
- Prosecution introduced multiple prior uncharged incidents (2016–2018): repeated restraining-order violations, nighttime banging, forced garage entries with damage, alleged thefts of stereo equipment and shoes, and an incident where Mani drove a vehicle toward his brother.
- A jury convicted Mani of first-degree residential burglary (count 1) and willful disobedience of a court order (count 2); a prior strike was found true; trial court sentenced an aggregate 13 years but did not formally impose on count 2 (stated §654 application).
- Trial court admitted the prior-act evidence under Evidence Code §§1109 (domestic-violence propensity) and 1101(b) (motive/intent/knowledge) and instructed with a modified CALCRIM No. 852A incorporating Family Code language defining “abuse.”
- On appeal the court affirmed the convictions, rejected all evidentiary and instructional challenges, but remanded for resentencing to comply with Penal Code §654 and, after the enactment of A.B. 518, to permit the trial court to choose which of the two sentences to execute and stay the other.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility under §1109: whether burglary (theft theory) is an "offense involving domestic violence" | Prior domestic-violence acts were admissible to prove propensity because §1109 incorporates the Family Code definition of domestic violence (including disturbing the peace) | §1109 should be limited to the Penal Code §13700 definition of "abuse"; theft-based burglary is not domestic violence | Held: §1109 unambiguously incorporates Family Code §6211/§6203/§6320 (five-year limit applies); burglary that disturbs victims' peace (including theft-based invasions) may be an offense involving domestic violence, so evidence was admissible under §1109 (subject to §352) |
| Admissibility under §1101(b): relevance to intent, knowledge, motive; sufficiency/corroboration | Prior acts showed intent to assault or steal and knowledge of restraining order—proper limited purpose uses under §1101(b) | Prior acts insufficiently similar, insufficient proof (preponderance) of thefts, and unduly prejudicial | Held: Prior acts sufficiently similar and probative for intent/knowledge/motive; circumstantial evidence provided preponderance support for the theft incidents; admission under §1101(b) was not an abuse of discretion |
| §352 balancing (undue prejudice, time, confusion) | Probative value of prior acts outweighed prejudice; incidents were not more inflammatory than charged conduct and did not unduly consume time | Prior acts were inflammatory (e.g., vehicle assault), risked jury punishing for unpunished acts, and risked confusing uses of evidence | Held: Trial court did not abuse discretion under §352; probative value was substantial and prejudicial risk did not substantially outweigh it |
| CALCRIM No. 852A instruction: use of Family Code definition and permitting propensity inference for theft-based burglary | Instruction properly reflected applicable law by including Family Code definition of ‘‘abuse’’ and limiting uses of prior-act evidence | Instruction improperly allowed propensity inference for burglary grounded on intent to steal (arguing theft is not domestic violence) and risked lessening burden of proof | Held: Instruction was legally correct; Family Code definition applies and disturbing victims’ peace covers theft invasions; instruction did not violate due process |
| Sentencing and §654 after A.B. 518: required pronouncement on stayed counts and retroactivity of A.B. 518 | A.B. 518 affords trial courts discretion to choose which sentence to execute when §654 applies; defendants entitled to ameliorative retroactive benefit | (No dispute as to retroactivity) | Held: Remanded for resentencing: trial court must impose sentence on count 2 and then exercise its A.B. 518 discretion to impose and execute one count’s sentence and stay execution of the other per §654; A.B. 518 applies retroactively |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Ogle, 185 Cal.App.4th 1138 (Cal. Ct. App.) (Family Code definition can bring offenses within §1109 even if not within Penal Code §13700)
- People v. Dallas, 165 Cal.App.4th 940 (Cal. Ct. App.) (Family Code provisions broaden §1109 application to additional victims/contexts)
- People v. James, 191 Cal.App.4th 478 (Cal. Ct. App.) (burglary involving threats/assault may qualify as an offense involving domestic violence)
- People v. Sorden, 65 Cal.App.5th 582 (Cal. Ct. App.) ("disturbing the peace" defined as conduct that destroys mental or emotional calm)
- In re Marriage of Nadkarni, 173 Cal.App.4th 1483 (Cal. Ct. App.) (ordinary meaning of "disturbing the peace" as emotional/mental disturbance)
- People v. Ewoldt, 7 Cal.4th 380 (Cal. 1994) (standard for admitting uncharged misconduct to prove intent)
- People v. Reliford, 29 Cal.4th 1007 (Cal. 2003) (upholding CALJIC/CALCRIM-style instructions on propensity evidence under §1109)
- People v. Duff, 50 Cal.4th 787 (Cal. 2010) (procedure for imposing and staying sentences under §654)
- People v. Alford, 180 Cal.App.4th 1463 (Cal. Ct. App.) (necessity to impose a term on counts covered by §654 and then stay execution)