People v. Ramirez CA2/5
B266525
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 15, 2016Background
- On March 9, 2015, Oscar Eduardo Ramirez was tried for corporal injury to a former cohabitant (Pen. Code § 273.5(a)); jury convicted him of that count but deadlocked on stun-gun assault and false imprisonment.
- Victim Abigail Perea testified Ramirez warned he would tase her, then tased her, dragged her by the hair, struck and hit her with a metal tool, and subjected her to hot/cold water in the shower; she escaped and showed documented injuries.
- Perea also testified she hit Ramirez during the argument but gave inconsistent, vague answers about timing and force of her blows.
- Ramirez argued the court should have sua sponte instructed on self-defense; he also sought to admit testimony about Perea’s violent character and later complained of prosecutor vouching.
- The trial court rejected self-defense instruction and excluded proposed character-for-violence evidence as irrelevant; it overruled a defense objection to a prosecutor’s rebuttal characterization of Perea as a ‘‘typical domestic violence victim.’n
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Ramirez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Sua sponte duty to instruct on self-defense | No duty because evidence did not raise self-defense; defendant used excessive force | Perea’s testimony that she hit Ramirez provided substantial evidence requiring self-defense instruction | Court: No error — Perea’s testimony was too vague/inconsistent and, even if credited, Ramirez’s response was legally excessive, so no instruction required |
| 2. Failure to instruct relieved prosecution of disproving self-defense (due process) | No burden arose because defense not properly presented | Court’s omission denied prosecution burden to disprove defense beyond reasonable doubt | Court: No due process violation — defense not properly raised; alternatively any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| 3. Exclusion of witness testimony about victim’s character for violence | Character evidence irrelevant absent a valid self-defense claim; exclusion proper | Evidence would show victim’s propensity for violence and support self-defense/credibility challenges | Court: No abuse of discretion — evidence properly excluded as irrelevant because no substantial self-defense evidence; any error harmless |
| 4. Prosecutorial vouching in rebuttal | Argument was a fair response to defense attack on victim’s credibility; not improper vouching | Prosecutor vouched and appealed to ‘‘typical domestic violence victim’’ stereotype, constituting misconduct and prejudicing jury | Court: Claim forfeited by inadequate objection; remarks were a permissible, fact-based rebuttal and not personal vouching; no prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Minifie, 13 Cal.4th 1055 (1996) (self-defense requires honest and reasonable belief and reasonable force)
- People v. Boyer, 38 Cal.4th 412 (2006) (sua sponte instruction required when defendant relies on or substantial evidence supports an affirmative defense)
- People v. Gutierrez, 45 Cal.4th 789 (2009) (trial court gatekeeping on relevance and exclusion of victim character evidence where self-defense not supported)
- People v. Adrian, 135 Cal.App.3d 335 (1982) (when self-defense is properly presented, prosecution must disprove it)
- People v. Banks, 67 Cal.App.3d 379 (1976) (same principle on burden to disprove self-defense when issue is properly raised)
- Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 (1975) (constitutional principle that prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt absence of claimed justification when properly at issue)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless-error standard under federal constitutional law)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (1956) (harmless-error standard under state law)