People v. Hendrix
Decision Date | 07 March 2013 |
Docket Number | C064377 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Richard Eugene HENDRIX, Defendant and Appellant. |
See 2 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Crimes Against Governmental Authority, § 128.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, Emily E. Vasquez, Judge. Reversed. (Super. Ct. No. 09F02258).
Alex Green, Chicago, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Carlos A. Martinez and Catherine Tennant Nieto, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Richard Eugene Hendrix was convicted of resisting an executive officer by use of force or violence in the performance of his duty in violation of Penal Code section 69. In a separate bench trial, the court found true an alleged prior strike. Defendant was sentenced to six years in state prison.
Defendant's first trial ended in a mistrial when the jury declared it was unable to reach a verdict. Prior to the second trial, the prosecution moved in limine to admit five incidents involving prior encounters defendant had with the police. Over defendant's objection, the trial court in the second trial ruled that evidence concerning two of the prior incidents, in which defendant unlawfully resisted the police, would be admissible. These two prior incidents were admitted into evidence at the second trial through live testimony of some of the police officers who were involved. The second jury returned a guilty verdict. Defendant contends the trial court committed reversible error in admitting evidence of the two prior incidents of defendant's misconduct. While evidence of uncharged offenses is admissible under the appropriate circumstances, our high court has cautioned that evidence of this kind “ ” ( People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380, 404, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 646, 867 P.2d 757 ( Ewoldt ).) Accordingly, we have carefully analyzed the prior incidents admitted here. We agree with defendant and reverse.
We shall summarize the underlying facts to provide context to the prosecution's offers of proof regarding the uncharged crimes and discuss the trial evidence in more detail, post.
Defendant was charged with violating Penal Code section 69 in that, by use of force and violence, defendant knowingly resisted Luke Mosley, a Sacramento Police officer, in the performance of his duty.
On the night of March 21, 2009, defendant fought a private security guard at an apartment complex. The security guard twice sprayed defendant in the face with pepper spray. He also fired a shot in defendant's direction. Defendant then fled. Later, the Sacramento police and additional security guards arrived on the scene. The police were in dark blue uniforms, the security guards in black uniforms.
After the police arrived, defendant was spotted near a garbage enclosure area. He was intoxicated. Defendant exited the enclosure and began pacing back and forth and yelling incoherent gibberish. Instead of complying with the officers' commands to get on the ground, defendant looked in the direction of the officers and fled. Taking different routes, the police and the security guards chased after defendant. During his flight, defendant either tripped or ran into a parked vehicle and Officer Mosley ran into him. Other police officers caught up to him and, while Officer Mosley attempted to detain defendant, defendant used force against Officer Mosley. None of the officers could remember whether they had identified themselves as police during the encounter.
There was no question that defendant resisted. Defendant contended the proof failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew the person he resisted was a police officer. Defendant asserted that, because he had been pepper-sprayed earlier, was intoxicated and the lighting was not good, he might have confused Officer Mosley for a security officer.
The prosecutor sought admission of evidence concerning five prior incidents involving defendant's encounters with the police under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b).1 These incidents were labeled 4a through e. The trial court's ruling allowing evidence concerning two of the five incidents was based on the prosecutor's proffer in the in limine briefing.
The two incidents admitted by the trial court, after some redaction, were described in the prosecution's in limine brief as follows:
[¶] ... [¶]
The incidents the trial court excluded were described as follows:
“a. On June 7, 2006, the Defendant was contacted at Franklin Villa Apartments, and taken into custody for an outstanding warrant. SPD Officer Pinola placed him in the rear of a patrol vehicle. The Defendant then proceeded to kick the patrol vehicle window, pushing the window outside of the door frame.
“c. [A]fter the Defendant was booked [for the incident described in “b”] Deputy Reeve was informed that the Defendant kicked the holding cell door. When the deputy entered the cell to remove the Defendant, the latter took a bladed stance. With the assistance if [ sic ] Deputy Nelson, Deputy Reeve placed the Defendant into a control hold to escort him to a sobering cell. The Defendant called the deputies cowards. When they arrived at the holding cell, he failed to comply with directives, physically struggled with the deputies, and threatened to ‘kick their asses.’ As Deputy Wade tried to leave the cell, the Defendant physically assaulted him, choking and scratching him.
In the in limine briefing, the prosecution contended that, under section 1101, subdivision (b), these prior incidents were The prosecution further sought to introduce the prior incidents “for the purpose of rebutting any implication of mistake of fact or self defense.”
The prosecution supplemented its theory of admissibility at oral argument on the motion: (Italics added.)
Defense counsel objected to the admissibility of all the prior incidents. He challenged the 1993 incident on remoteness grounds. As for the prosecution's knowledge theory, defense counsel acknowledged that the defense he was prepared to advance would put the element of knowledge in active dispute but argued, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Winkler
...charge, or to take the proof of it as justifying a conviction irrespective of guilt of the present charge." ( Hendrix, supra , 214 Cal.App.4th at p. 238, 153 Cal.Rptr.3d 740, quoting People v. Guerrero (1976) 16 Cal.3d 719, 724, 129 Cal.Rptr. 166, 548 P.2d 366 ( Guerrero ).)"Evidence of oth......
-
People v. Williams
...principles and policies that should have guided the court's actions." [Citation.]’ [Citation.]" ( People v. Hendrix (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 216, 238-239, 153 Cal.Rptr.3d 740 ( Hendrix ).)"The reasons for exclusion are: ‘First , character evidence is of slight probative value and may be very ......
-
People v. Xiong
...long ago, the knowledge gained from such experiences can be retained and recalled in the future." ( People v. Hendrix (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 216, 242, 243, 153 Cal.Rptr.3d 740 [holding that past experiences may be relevant to knowledge a defendant has at the time of the offense for purposes......
-
People v. Dryden
...trial court's rulings under Evidence Code sections 1101 and 352 are reviewed for abuse of discretion ( People v. Hendrix (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 216, 239, 153 Cal.Rptr.3d 740 ( Hendrix )), with attention paid to " ‘the legal principles and policies that should have guided the court's actions......
-
Table of Cases null
...5-A, §5.1.3(1)(a) People v. Hendricks, 43 Cal. 3d 584, 238 Cal. Rptr. 66, 737 P.2d 1350 (1987)—Ch. 1, §4.5.4 People v. Hendrix, 214 Cal. App. 4th 216, 153 Cal. Rptr. 3d 740 (3d Dist. 2013)—Ch. 4-A, §4.1.4; §4.1.4(2)(d) People v. Henriquez, 4 Cal. 5th 1, 226 Cal. Rptr. 3d 69, 406 P.3d 748 (C......
-
Character and habit
...element is akin to absence of mistake or innocent intent, a greater degree of similarity is required. People v. Hendrix (2013) 214 Cal. App. 4th 216, 242, 153 Cal. Rptr. 3d 740. To establish knowledge when the issue is the absence of mistake, the uncharged events must support the inference ......
-
Table of cases
...238 Cal. Rptr. 66, §22:210 Hendrix, People v. (2022) 13 Cal. 5th 933, 297 Cal. Rptr. 3d 278, §§22:10, 22:50 Hendrix, People v. (2013) 214 Cal. App. 4th 216, 153 Cal. Rptr. 3d 740, §11:10 Hennefer v. Butcher (1986) 182 Cal. App. 3d 492, 227 Cal. Rptr. 318, §18:40 Henriksen v. Great American ......
-
Chapter 4 - §4. Character evidence of other acts offered for nonpropensity purposes
...147, 191; People v. Thompson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1043, 1114; People v. Lindberg (2008) 45 Cal.4th 1, 22; People v. Hendrix (3d Dist.2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 216, 238. While courts must also consider the similarity between the charged offense and the other act to be admitted, this analysis depends......