People v. McLaughlin CA3
C078624
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 4, 2016Background
- Defendant Alias James McLaughlin lived with girlfriend Dalena Lam and their infant daughter; the infant died from a single severe blunt-force head injury after defendant handled and tossed her while she was crying.
- Lam and her uncle testified to a history of defendant’s physical abuse of Lam, including a 2012 misdemeanor conviction for assault on a cohabitant and multiple incidents before and after the infant’s death.
- At trial defendant was convicted of second degree murder (Pen. Code § 187) and assault on a child resulting in death (§ 273ab); sentence: concurrent terms with one stayed under Penal Code § 654.
- The People sought to admit defendant’s prior domestic-violence acts under Evidence Code § 1109 (propensity in domestic-violence prosecutions) and § 1101(b) (knowledge, intent, absence of mistake).
- The trial court admitted the prior-acts evidence and instructed the jury on both propensity (§ 1109) and limited § 1101(b) use (knowledge).
- On appeal defendant argued the evidence was inadmissible under § 1101, inadmissible under § 1109 (including § 352 balancing), and that § 1109 is facially unconstitutional under due process; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (McLaughlin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility under § 1101(b) (knowledge/absence of mistake) | Prior domestic abuse is relevant to defendant’s knowledge and state of mind when handling the infant. | Prior acts against an adult cohabitant do not show he subjectively knew tossing/putting down an infant was life‑dangerous. | Forfeited on appeal — defendant failed to raise a specific § 1101 objection at trial; court affirmed admission. |
| Admissibility under § 1109 (propensity) and § 352 balancing | § 1109 permits propensity evidence of uncharged domestic violence in domestic‑violence prosecutions; court properly exercised § 352 discretion. | Evidence of assaults on an adult victim has little probative value for propensity to injure an infant; prejudicial effect outweighed probative value. | Forfeited on appeal for lack of a timely, specific § 352 objection at trial; trial court’s § 352 rulings not reviewed on appeal. |
| Instructional use of prior acts (CALCRIM combining §§ 1109 & 1101) | Jury may consider prior domestic violence for propensity and limitedly for knowledge; People met preponderance standard for uncharged acts. | Objected generally on due process grounds only; did not preserve other evidentiary objections. | Instruction was proper given admitted testimony; no preserved error. |
| Facial due process challenge to § 1109 | § 1109 is constitutional because trial courts retain § 352 balancing and juries receive limiting instructions; parallels upheld in § 1108 context. | § 1109 violates due process by permitting propensity evidence to unfairly prejudice defendant. | Rejected. Following People v. Falsetta and prior appellate precedent, § 1109 does not violate due process. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Falsetta, 21 Cal.4th 903 (1999) (upholding use of propensity evidence under § 1108 and rejecting facial due process challenge)
- People v. Johnson, 77 Cal.App.4th 410 (2000) (explaining § 1109’s limits, § 352 safeguard, and rejecting due process challenge)
- People v. Morris, 53 Cal.3d 152 (1991) (an in limine ruling does not preserve an evidentiary objection for appeal unless renewed at trial)