People v. Brown

• Decision Date: 02 August 2004
• Docket Number: No. S113929.,S113929.
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Cornell Cooper BROWN, Defendant and Appellant.

16 Cal.Rptr.3d 447

94 P.3d 574

33 Cal.4th 892

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Cornell Cooper BROWN, Defendant and Appellant.

No. S113929.

Supreme Court of California.

August 2, 2004.

William D. Farber, under appointment by the Supreme Court, San Rafael, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Manuel M. Medeiros, State Solicitor General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Margaret E. Maxwell, Donald E. De Nicola, Victoria B. Wilson and John Yang, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Emberly Cross, San Francisco, for California Alliance Against Domestic Violence, California National Organization for Women, California Women's Law Center, Minnesota Program Development, Inc., NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, Nancy K.D. Lemon, Erin C. Smith and

Jim Fahey as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.

KENNARD, J.

At defendant's trial on charges relating to domestic violence, the prosecution offered testimony from an expert witness to explain that domestic violence¹ victims often later deny or minimize the assailant's conduct. Defendant objected. He contended such testimony did not fall within the scope of Evidence Code section 1107,² which authorizes expert testimony on "battered women's syndrome." He argued the prosecution had failed to show that the victim here was a battered woman because it offered no proof that defendant had abused her on more than one occasion. The trial court overruled the objection and admitted the evidence. Defendant was convicted, and the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. We granted defendant's petition for review.

Two Court of Appeal decisions have addressed the issue whether expert testimony about the behavior of domestic violence victims is admissible when only one incident of abuse has occurred: People v. Gomez (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 405, 85 Cal. Rptr.2d 101 (Gomez) held it inadmissible; People v. Williams (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1118, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 356 (Williams) held it admissible. We conclude that in this case the evidence was admissible under Evidence Code section 801, because it would assist the trier of fact in evaluating the credibility of the victim's trial testimony and earlier statements to the police, by providing relevant information about the tendency of victims of domestic violence later to recant or minimize their description of that violence. (See People v. McAlpin (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1289, 1300, 283 Cal.Rptr. 382, 812 P.2d 563 (McAlpin).) We therefore do not reach the question whether the expert testimony here was also admissible under section 1107.

I. FACTS

Defendant and Kimberly Pipes, the victim, had been dating on and off for about 11 years. On April 17, 2001, they were living together in an apartment with Pipes's four children and Carrie Miller, a woman who took care of the children when Pipes worked.

Pipes rented the apartment from Leland Jordan, defendant's cousin. At 2 a.m. on April 17, Jordan came to the apartment to demand payment of back rent. When Pipes refused because Jordan had not fixed the water system, Jordan told Pipes to vacate the apartment. After Jordan left, Pipes and defendant began arguing. Pipes was upset because she thought defendant should have taken her side in the argument with Jordan.

Shortly thereafter, Deputy Sheriff James Wheeler responded to a telephone call from Pipes and found her with Carrie Miller in a parked car near the apartment. Pipes told Wheeler she had been assaulted. She said she tried to leave the apartment after an argument with defendant but he put his arm around her neck and dragged her to the bedroom. Defendant then went to the living room and returned to the bedroom with a steak knife and a barbecue fork, telling Pipes he would kill her if she left. She was afraid. When she said she wanted to leave, defendant replied, "I don't want you having my baby," and punched her in the stomach.³ Miller told Deputy Wheeler that defendant had threatened to kill both her and Pipes if they left. He also threatened to have some women come over to beat up Miller and Pipes. Deputy Wheeler arrested defendant and found the steak knife where Pipes said it was.

Pipes's trial testimony differed from what she had told Deputy Wheeler earlier. At trial she said that when she started to leave the apartment, defendant took hold of her arm, not her neck, and pulled her back to the bedroom. She lay down for a while, then when she got up to leave again he slapped her in the stomach. Defendant had never struck her before. She lay down again for a few minutes, then she woke up Miller, went with Miller and the children to the car, drove a short distance, and called the police. Pipes said that defendant never threatened her.

Pipes testified that when she went into the apartment with the police, the officers said they did not have "enough to go on." Pipes then picked up the knife and fork and said defendant had "poked" them at her. Pipes said she did this so defendant would get arrested; in fact, he did not threaten her with the knife and fork. When asked whether defendant was doing anything against her will, Pipes replied, "not to the full extent, no."

Carrie Miller was not available to testify at the trial, so the prosecutor read to the jury Miller's testimony from the preliminary hearing. There Miller testified that she was asleep until Pipes woke her just before they left the apartment, so she did not know what happened between Pipes and defendant. She denied that defendant had ever threatened her.

Jeri Darr, Program Manager of the Antelope Valley Domestic Violence Council, testified as an expert witness for the prosecution. Before permitting the jury to consider Darr's testimony, the trial court instructed: "This evidence is not going to be received and must not be considered by you to prove the occurrence of the act or acts of abuse which form the basis of the crimes charged." Darr testified: Domestic violence victims, after describing the violence to the police, often later repudiate their description. There is typically "anywhere between 24 and 48 hours where victims will be truthful about what occurred because they're still angry, they're still scared." But "after they have had time to think about it ... it is not uncommon for them to change their mind." About 80 to 85 percent of victims "actually recant at some point in the process." Some victims will say they lied to the police; almost all will attempt to minimize their experience.

Darr explained why victims of domestic violence may give conflicting statements: They may be financially dependent on the defendant. They may be pressured, or even threatened, by the defendant or other family members. They may still love the defendant and hope that things will get better. Darr stated: "[T]hey may tell us as advocates the truth but may recant once they realize that this is not going to be ... 30 days in county jail or time served and go to counseling. They don't realize that oftentimes these types of cases add up and can compile and you could be looking at prison time." Darr testified that the tendency to recant or minimize accounts of violence applies to victims who have only one incident of abuse. According to Darr, a victim's attempt to leave "can often escalate a non-physically abusive relationship ... into physical abuse."

Defendant objected to the admission of Darr's testimony. Citing Gomez, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th 405, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 101, he argued that the evidence lacked a foundation because the prosecution had failed to present proof of any earlier incident of abuse. The trial court overruled the objection, relying on Williams, supra, 78 Cal. App.4th 1118, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 356.

The jury convicted defendant on three counts: count II — threatening to commit a crime that would result in death or great bodily injury against Pipes (Pen. Code, § 422); count III — false imprisonment by violence against Pipes (id., § 236); and count VI — misdemeanor battery against Pipes (id., § 243, subd. (e)(1)).⁴ The jury was unable to agree on the charge of assault with a deadly weapon on Pipes, and on the two charges relating to Miller; these charges were later dismissed at the prosecutor's request. The jury found that defendant had four prior convictions, and in each instance had not remained free from prison custody for more than five years. One of the prior convictions involved a serious or violent felony.

The trial court imposed a sentence of three years on count II (false imprisonment by violence), doubled as a second strike. With additional counts and enhancements, the sentence totaled 10 years and eight months.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. Defendant's petition for review raised a single issue — whether the expert testimony here was admissible in the absence of evidence of more than one incident of abuse.

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

A. The Nature of Domestic Violence

Domestic violence is a serious social and legal problem in the United States, occurring in every economic, racial, and ethnic group. (Developments in the Law — Domestic Violence (1993) 106 Harv. L.Rev. 1499, 1501 (Developments in the Law); see American Psychological Assn., Violence and the Family (1997) p. 9(APA).) It differs from other forms of criminal violence in several ways:

(1) As compared to other crimes, domestic violence is vastly underreported, and until the last 20 to 30 years was largely hidden from public examination. (See State v. Kelly (1984) 97 N.J. 178, 478 A.2d 364, 370; APA, supra, p. 9; Waits, The Criminal Justice System's Response to Battering: Understanding the Problem, Forging the Solutions (1985) 60 Wash. L.Rev. 267, fn. 1 (Waits).)

(2) In most cases, the batterers are male, the victims female.⁵ (Developments in the Law, supra, 106 Harv. L.Rev. at p. 1501, fn. 1; see Okun, Woman Abuse: Facts Replacing Myths (1986) pp. 39-40.)

(3) "A fundamental difference between family violence and...