95 Cal.App.5th 363
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- On October 3, 2020, 17‑year‑old Jaylen Betschart was fatally shot; surveillance showed a gray Dodge registered to Slaton following the victim’s car. A gun later recovered from a Buick at Slaton’s residence was ballistically linked to the shooting; gunshot residue was found in the Dodge.
- Videos and photos from Slaton’s stepchild (D.C.) and social media placed D.C. in Slaton’s Dodge near the shooting; D.C. filmed the Dodge following the victim and was shown with a Glock and a yellow sweatshirt matching a passenger seen in surveillance.
- Slaton’s social media and a rap video (not played at trial) showed Slaton affiliating with Crips symbolism: blue bandanas, hand ‘‘C’’ signs, and association with known Garden Blocc Crips members; Betschart wore red the day he was killed.
- Prosecution theorized motive: Slaton (sympathetic to Crips/blue) targeted Betschart (wearing red, associated with rival Bloods). The court admitted 13 screenshots from Slaton’s rap video limitedly to show gang affiliation and explain slang terms; the video itself was not played.
- A jury convicted Slaton of murder, found firearm and special‑circumstance allegations true; sentence: LWOP plus a 25‑to‑life firearm enhancement. Slaton appealed raising three evidentiary issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility under Evid. Code §1101 | Screenshots of Slaton’s rap video are admissible as evidence of motive/intent (not propensity) because they show affiliation/sympathy for Crips and explain why victim in red could be targeted. | §1101(b) only permits evidence of crimes/bad acts; affiliating in a rap video is not a crime, so the screenshots are not an ‘‘other act’’ under §1101(b). | Affirmed: §1101(b) covers ‘‘other act[s]’’ (not limited to crimes); screenshots admissible to prove motive, not propensity. |
| Exclusion under Evid. Code §352 (undue prejudice) | Probative value substantial: screenshots directly support the prosecution’s motive theory and the court limited prejudice by excluding the full video. | Screenshots were inflammatory, minimally relevant (no gang enhancement charged; victim not shown to be ordered killed), and unfairly prejudicial. | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion. Probative value of gang‑affiliation screenshots outweighed prejudice given limitations (screenshots only, no lyrics played). |
| Retroactive application of new §352.2 (creative expression) | §352.2 (effective Jan 1, 2023) creates heightened review for creative expression evidence and should apply retroactively under Estrada because it can ameliorate outcomes for defendants. | §352.2 is a neutral evidentiary rule, not analogous to statutes that reduce punishment; absent express retroactivity it should be applied prospectively only. | Affirmed: §352.2 is not retroactive. Estrada presumption does not apply because §352.2 is a neutral evidentiary rule, not a law that by design/function reduces punishment. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Guzman, 8 Cal.5th 673 (Cal. 2019) (§1101(b) scope and admitting non‑propensity evidence)
- People v. James, 62 Cal.App.3d 399 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976) (§1101 not confined to evidence of crimes)
- People v. Flores, 9 Cal.5th 371 (Cal. 2020) (gang testimony may be highly relevant for motive despite prejudice risks)
- People v. McKinnon, 52 Cal.4th 610 (Cal. 2011) (gang affiliation admissible to prove motive/intent)
- People v. Coneal, 41 Cal.App.5th 951 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (rap videos with graphic lyrics can be unduly prejudicial)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (presumption of retroactivity for ameliorative penal statutes)
- People v. Lara, 4 Cal.5th 299 (Cal. 2018) (limits of Estrada—statutes that by design/function reduce punishment)
- People v. Hayes, 49 Cal.3d 1260 (Cal. 1989) (new evidentiary statutes are presumptively prospective absent clear intent to the contrary)