People v. Shorts
9 Cal. App. 5th 350
Cal. Ct. App.2017Background
- In 1996 13-year-old Jessica S. was found sexually assaulted and shot in the head; vaginal and rectal swabs later matched defendant Terry Shorts’s DNA (identified in 2012).
- Defendant conceded sexual contact with Jessica but denied committing the murder, asserting possible third-party culpability (Sammy Rodriguez).
- Prosecution introduced under Evid. Code § 1108 evidence of defendant’s prior violent sexual assault of an adult (J.P.) to show propensity.
- Defense sought to introduce evidence that Rodriguez had a prior shooting/assault conviction and other violent history to show third-party culpability; trial court limited that evidence.
- Trial court admitted lay-opinion testimony from Rodriguez’s ex-wife that Rodriguez did not commit the murder. Jury convicted Shorts of first‑degree murder with special‑circumstance sexual offenses; sentence was life without parole plus enhancements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of J.P. prior sexual‑offense evidence under Evid. Code §1108 over §352 objection | §1108 permits prior sexual‑offense evidence; it’s highly probative of propensity and similarities to charged conduct | Admission was unduly prejudicial, confusing and unnecessary because charged offenses were predicated on age (lack of consent by age), not force | Trial court did not abuse discretion; similarities (park, gun, strangulation, oral/anal sex) made evidence highly probative and not substantially outweighed by prejudice |
| Exclusion of defense evidence that Rodriguez had propensity for violence (Wardius/symmetry claim) | Prosecution’s use of §1108 creates imbalance; due process/ Wardius requires reciprocity so defense can present propensity evidence of third party | Evidence of Rodriguez’s prior shooting was inadmissible under existing rules (not a sexual‑offense or qualifying domestic‑violence prior), and Wardius does not obligate admitting otherwise inadmissible evidence | No violation of due process; trial court properly excluded Rodriguez shooting evidence—not admissible under §1108 or §1109 and exclusion not an abuse of discretion |
| Admission of lay‑opinion testimony (ex‑wife) that Rodriguez did not murder Jessica | N/A (prosecution introduced the opinion) | Lay opinion was speculative and impermissible; prejudicial to defendant’s right to a fair determination of guilt | Even if admission was error, it was harmless (no reasonable probability of a different verdict); not a federal constitutional error requiring Chapman reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Harris, 60 Cal.App.4th 727 (discussion of factors for balancing probative value vs. prejudice under Evid. Code §352)
- People v. Loy, 52 Cal.4th 46 (standard of review for §1108 rulings)
- Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470 (due process reciprocity principle in discovery)
- California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (right to present a complete defense limitations)
- People v. Brown, 31 Cal.4th 518 (evidentiary rules can limit defense evidence)
- Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (exclusion of weak third‑party evidence is permitted)
- People v. Prince, 40 Cal.4th 1179 (no constitutional violation where trial court properly excludes evidence)
- People v. Rodriguez, 20 Cal.4th 1 (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- People v. DeHoyos, 57 Cal.4th 79 (state harmless‑error test for evidentiary errors)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (standard for state‑law harmless error)
- People v. Marks, 31 Cal.4th 197 (distinguishing state evidentiary error from federal constitutional error)
- People v. Fitch, 55 Cal.App.4th 172 (legislative policy behind §1108 admission of prior sexual‑offense evidence)
- People v. Mena, 54 Cal.4th 146 (summary of Wardius and reciprocity limits)
- People v. Villatoro, 54 Cal.4th 1152 (limits on propensity evidence under §1101)
- People v. Rucker, 126 Cal.App.4th 1107 (definition/scope of domestic‑violence evidence under §1109)