People v. Yakou CA4/1, D076140

On Oct. 6, 2018, Chrystal Yakou and J.V. argued after leaving a Tijuana nightclub; a struggle over Yakou’s phone escalated and Yakou sliced two of J.V.’s fingers with a knife. J.V. required surgery and had lasting nerve damage.
A jury convicted Yakou of assault with a deadly weapon and found true enhancements for personal use of a weapon and infliction of great bodily injury; the trial court suspended sentence and granted three years’ probation with 270 days local custody.
Defense claimed self-defense and argued J.V. was drunk, violent, and had motive to lie (including telling the 911 dispatcher he was not associated with Yakou to speed response); Yakou testified J.V. said he “can’t go to jail.”
The defense sought to admit evidence that J.V. had a recent drug arrest and two-day incarceration a week before the incident to show Yakou’s state of mind and to impeach J.V.’s credibility/motive to lie.
The trial court excluded the recent-arrest evidence under Evidence Code § 352 (risk of undue prejudice and time consumption) and warned that admitting it could open the door to Evidence Code § 1103 evidence of Yakou’s prior acts; the jury nonetheless heard cross-examination about J.V.’s alleged statement that he could not go to jail and his lie to the 911 dispatcher.
Yakou appealed, arguing exclusion violated her constitutional right to present a complete defense; the Court of Appeal affirmed.

Issue	People’s Argument	Yakou’s Argument	Held
Whether exclusion of evidence that the victim was recently arrested and briefly jailed violated defendant’s right to present a defense and was improper under Evidence Code § 352	Exclusion was proper: the arrest (no conviction) was of limited probative value, unduly prejudicial and time-consuming; admitting it risked opening door to defendant’s prior bad-act evidence under Evid. Code § 1103	The recent arrest was relevant to Yakou’s state of mind (fear) and to impeach J.V.’s credibility/motive to lie about the incident; excluding it prevented presentation of a complete defense	Court affirmed: exclusion under Evid. Code § 352 was within broad discretion and not an abuse; any error was not reasonably probable to affect outcome (no constitutional violation)

People v. Waidla, 22 Cal.4th 690 (2000) (explains Evidence Code § 352 balancing and prejudice vs. probative value)
People v. Smith, 40 Cal.4th 483 (2007) (trial courts may control impeachment evidence to prevent collateral credibility wars)
People v. Contreras, 58 Cal.4th 123 (2013) (broad discretion to exclude impeachment evidence other than felony convictions)
People v. Fields, 175 Cal.App.4th 1001 (2009) (harmless-error standard for erroneous exclusion/admission of evidence)
People v. Gunder, 151 Cal.App.4th 412 (2007) (prejudice inquiry focuses on emotional jury bias unrelated to guilt)
People v. Jennings, 81 Cal.App.4th 1301 (2000) (appellate review of trial court’s exercise of discretion under Evid. Code § 352)
People v. Harris, 37 Cal.4th 310 (2005) (standard of review for admissibility of impeachment evidence involving moral turpitude)