People v. Balcom
| Decision Date | 28 February 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. S024543,S024543 |
| Citation | 7 Cal.4th 414,27 Cal.Rptr.2d 666,867 P.2d 777 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 867 P.2d 777 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jason Michael BALCOM, Defendant and Appellant. |
Charles H. James, Public Defender (Contra Costa), Jack Funk, Deputy Public Defender, and John M. Sink as amici curiae, on behalf of defendant and appellant.
Daniel E. Lungren, Atty. Gen., George Williamson, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Harley D. Mayfield and Gary W. Schons, Asst. Attys. Gen., Robert M. Foster, Keith I. Motley and Laura Whitcomb Halgren, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Diego, for plaintiff and respondent.
In People v. Ewoldt, 7 Cal.4th 380, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 646, 867 P.2d 757, we overruled the holding in People v. Tassell (1984) 36 Cal.3d 77, 201 Cal.Rptr. 567, 679 P.2d 1 that evidence of uncharged misconduct is admissible to establish a common design or plan only if such evidence demonstrates a "single, continuing conception or plot" of which the charged crime is a part. (People v. Ewoldt, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. ----, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d at p. 658, 867 P.2d at p. 769.) We held instead in Ewoldt that such evidence is admissible to establish a common design or plan if the uncharged misconduct "shares sufficient common features with the charged offenses to support the inference that both the uncharged misconduct and the charged offenses are manifestations of a common design or plan." (Id. at p. ----, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d at p. 660, 867 P.2d at p. 771.)
In the present case, we hold that evidence tending to establish that, soon after the commission of the charged offenses of rape and robbery, defendant committed a rape and robbery in Michigan in a manner quite similar to the charged offenses, was admissible to
[867 P.2d 779] demonstrate the existence of a common design or plan which, in turn, was relevant to demonstrate that defendant either employed or developed that plan in committing the charged offenses.
Defendant was charged by information with rape (Pen.Code, § 261, subd. (2)) and related offenses of burglary and robbery. 1 Following trial, the jury found defendant guilty of first degree robbery but was unable to reach a verdict on the rape and burglary counts. The case was set for retrial on the rape count only. Prior to the second trial, the trial court ruled that evidence could be admitted tending to establish that defendant had committed a rape and robbery in Michigan less than two months after the charged offense.
The victim in the present case, Denise B., testified that on July 24, 1988, she lived in a rented condominium she shared with her roommate, Jace O. At approximately 1 a.m., Denise was alone, dressed in a nightgown and robe, when she heard a knock on her front door. Looking out the peephole, she observed in the dimly lit hallway a man wearing a cap. When she opened the door, the man, a six-foot-tall Caucasian, inquired whether a person named Mike resided there. Denise responded in the negative, and the man walked away as she closed the door.
Approximately five minutes later, there was another knock at the door. Denise looked out the peephole and again observed a man wearing a cap. Rather than open her door again, she went onto her patio, looked over the fence, and saw defendant, a six-foot-tall Black man, standing by her front door. Defendant, who was holding a rifle, ran toward her and leapt over the fence. Pointing the weapon at Denise, he ordered her into the condominium.
Denise sat on the couch and asked defendant what he wanted. Defendant responded, "Where's your money?," and she replied that it was inside her purse, which was in the bedroom. When defendant ordered her to retrieve it, she entered the bedroom. As she did so, defendant followed, put his arm around her, and fondled her breast. Denise gave defendant the small amount of money that was inside her purse. Defendant asked for "the card." Denise thought he meant her credit cards and began to retrieve them, but defendant stopped her, stating: "[N]o, no, the card for the machine." After Denise gave defendant her automated teller machine (ATM) card, he asked for her personal identification number (PIN) for the ATM card, threatening he would return and kill her in the event the number was incorrect. She gave him the correct number. At defendant's direction, Denise surrendered the key to her automobile and described the vehicle's appearance and location.
Defendant asked Denise for other valuables and looked through her belongings. Finding little of value, he said, "Well, since you don't have anything [it] looks like I'm going to have to rape you." Defendant tied Denise's wrists with a belt and ordered her to kneel on the floor. She hesitated, begging, "Please, please, don't," but defendant put the gun to her face and again ordered her onto the floor. When she complied, defendant gagged her with a bandanna and ordered her to lie on her back. He then ripped open her robe, raised her nightgown, removed her underpants, lowered his pants, and raped her. Defendant asked Denise whether it hurt or felt good, but she did not respond.
Defendant took Denise's watch and camera and an orange towel. He made her sit on the bed and tied her ankles with another belt. Telling her he was a member of a gang, he threatened that the gang would kill her if she reported him to the police. He About this time, a visitor to the condominium complex observed a man matching defendant's general description, wearing a cap, leave the vicinity of Denise's condominium carrying a long object covered with a gold-colored towel. From its shape and the manner in which it was being carried, the visitor believed the object was a rifle.
[867 P.2d 780] then left. After managing to remove the gag, Denise telephoned the police.
When the police arrived, they found the door to the condominium ajar and Denise inside, bound at the wrists and ankles. The condominium had been ransacked. Denise's automobile was missing.
Approximately six weeks after the commission of the crime, Denise was shown a photographic lineup, which did not include a photograph of defendant. She did not identify any of the photographs as that of her assailant. A few days later, she was shown a second photographic lineup, which did include a photograph of defendant. Denise identified defendant as her assailant.
The owner of a pawnshop testified that defendant pawned the victim's camera. An expert in fingerprint identification testified that defendant's fingerprints matched a fingerprint on the pawn slip, as well as one found on the bottom of a jewelry box which Denise kept in her bedroom. An analysis of a sample of defendant's blood was compared with an analysis of semen collected from the victim's vagina and revealed that defendant was included in the group of men who could have produced that semen. This group includes approximately 13 percent of the Black male population.
Defendant testified that he had met the victim and her roommate, Jace O., when he accompanied his friend to Denise's condominium, where the friend consummated a drug transaction with Jace. Defendant agreed to sell a gold necklace to Jace for $250 and left the necklace with him.
Defendant testified that when he returned to the condominium the following night to collect his money, Denise invited him in, stating that Jace would arrive shortly. Defendant claimed that he and Denise conversed and then engaged in consensual sexual intercourse.
Defendant further testified that Denise then told him that Jace was not returning and had no intention of paying him the $250. This upset defendant, and he demanded the money from Denise. When she refused, he demanded her ATM card. When she again refused, defendant removed the card from her purse, but she would not divulge her PIN. Defendant took her camera, placing it on the bed while he searched for other valuables. Denise grabbed the camera and threw it at defendant. Defendant then tied her wrists and ankles with belts. When she threatened to "yell rape," defendant gagged her with a bandanna. After Denise finally provided defendant with her PIN, he took the ATM card, the camera, and the keys to her automobile, driving off in her vehicle. Defendant withdrew $200 from Denise's bank account and pawned the camera for $20.
In his testimony, defendant also admitted he had suffered a felony conviction for "criminal sexual assault" in Michigan, where his family resided at the time. Defendant stated he had been sentenced to a term of 50 years in prison for that offense and was appealing from the judgment.
In rebuttal, Theresa H. testified for the prosecution regarding the Michigan offense. On September 2, 1988, six weeks after the charged offense was committed, she was driving out of her apartment complex at 6:30 a.m. when defendant, who was wearing a cap, motioned for her to stop and asked for directions. As she was replying, defendant placed a handgun to her head, opened the door of the automobile, and, shoving her aside, entered the vehicle and began driving. Defendant assured her he wanted only money.
Defendant parked the automobile on a dirt road behind a business establishment. As Theresa reached for her purse, defendant "jumped on top" of her and said he was going to rape her. He tore off her clothes, pulled down his pants, and engaged in sexual intercourse with Theresa.
Thereafter, defendant went through Theresa's purse and took her ATM card from The jury in the present proceedings found defendant guilty of rape. After the Court of Appeal affirmed the resulting judgment of conviction, we granted defendant's petition for review.
[867 P.2d 781] her wallet, asking whether he could obtain cash with it. Theresa asked whether he would let her go if she gave him her PIN and could prove it was valid. When defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Gayanich, A113729 (Cal. App. 4/27/2007)
...offense was of course placed in issue by defendant's not guilty plea. (See People v. Catlin, supra, 26 Cal.4th 81, 146; People v. Balcom (1994) 7 Cal.4th 414, 422.) A fact like defendant's intent or knowledge "`generally becomes "disputed" when it is raised by a plea of not guilty or a deni......
-
People v. Molano
...Moreover, the jury knew defendant had already served a prison sentence for his attack on Brenda. (See People v. Balcom (1994) 7 Cal.4th 414, 427, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 666, 867 P.2d 777.) No abuse of discretion appears.3. Unreasonable Belief that the Victim Consented to IntercourseThe trial court ......
-
People v. Daveggio
...defendants' identity as to the Vanessa Samson charge and appurtenant special circumstances. (See generally People v. Balcom (1994) 7 Cal.4th 414, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 666, 867 P.2d 777 ; People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 646, 867 P.2d 757 ( Ewoldt ).)In admitting the evidence,......
-
People v. Wang
...1107, 1119, 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 62 ; Johnson , supra , 185 Cal.App.4th at pp. 533–535, 110 Cal.Rptr.3d 515 ; People v. Balcom (1994) 7 Cal.4th 414, 427, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 666, 867 P.2d 777.)3. No abuse of discretion occurredAppellant contends the evidence of the prior domestic violence incident was......
-
Table of cases
...274 Cal. Rptr. 3d 655, §§2:190, 11:10, 19:140 Balasco v. Chick (1948) 84 Cal. App. 2d 802, 192 P.2d 76, §16:90 Balcom, People v. (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 414, 27 Cal. Rptr. 2d 666, §11:10 Balderas, People v. (1985) 41 Cal. 3d 144, 222 Cal. Rptr. 184, §2:130 Baldine, People v. (2001) 94 Cal. App. 4......
-
Chapter 4 - §3. Character evidence offered to prove propensity
...have the same or different victims or witnesses). See Dworak, 11 Cal.5th at 900; Falsetta, 21 Cal.4th at 917; People v. Balcom (1994) 7 Cal.4th 414, 426-27; see, e.g., Erskine, 7 Cal.5th at 296 (considering similarity); Merriman, 60 Cal.4th at 41 (considering all three factors); Avila, 59 C......
-
Table of Cases null
...2, §11.1.3(1)(a) People v. Baker, 164 Cal. App. 4th 1152, 79 Cal. Rptr. 3d 858 (5th Dist. 2008)—Ch. 5-A, §3.3.1(2)(b) People v. Balcom, 7 Cal. 4th 414, 27 Cal. Rptr. 2d 666, 867 P.2d 777 (1994)—Ch. 4-A, §3.4.1(5)(a); §4.1.4(2)(a) People v. Balderas, 41 Cal. 3d 144, 222 Cal. Rptr. 184, 711 P......
-
Character and habit
...583. If offered to prove identity, plan or intent there must be sufficient similarity to support the inference. People v. Balcom (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 414, 27 Cal. Rptr. 2d 666; People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 380, 404, 27 Cal. Rptr. 2d 646. In evaluating the similarity between the uncharged......