People v. Minifie
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | CHIN; GEORGE |
| Citation | People v. Minifie, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 133, 13 Cal.4th 1055, 920 P.2d 1337 (Cal. 1996) |
| Decision Date | 29 August 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. S046382,S046382 |
| Parties | , 920 P.2d 1337, 55 A.L.R.5th 835, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6517 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Steven Arthur MINIFIE, Defendant and Appellant. |
David D. Carico, Monterey, for Defendant and Appellant.
Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Ronald A. Bass, Assistant Attorney General, Ronald S. Matthias, Richard Rochman and Martin S. Kaye, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A defendant charged with assaultive crimes who claims self-defense may present evidence that the alleged victim had previously threatened him. Here, we decide the admissibility of threats against the defendant, not by the victim, but by third parties. We conclude that evidence of third party threats is admissible to support a claim of self-defense if there is also evidence from which the jury may find that the defendant reasonably associated the victim with those threats.
In this case, the trial court excluded substantial evidence of third party threats. The Court of Appeal held the exclusion to be error and found it prejudicial as to most of the counts. We agree.
The incident underlying this case occurred in the crowded Antlers Bar in Pinole around midnight on November 29-30, 1992. Aukusitino Afamasaga (Tino) was sitting at a table with several others when defendant, a convicted felon, entered the bar. Tino, a large man, had a broken foot covered by a cast and was using crutches. He was unarmed. Tino testified that he did not know defendant by sight, but someone pointed defendant out to him. Tino disliked defendant because he had killed Tino's friend, Jackie Knight. Tino had been a pallbearer at Knight's funeral. Defendant and Tino made eye contact, and then approached each other.
They spoke briefly. Tino asked if defendant knew who Tino was. Defendant replied that he did. Tino said, "So it was you?" Then Tino punched defendant in the face, knocking him to the floor on his back. Tino's crutches fell, and he turned to grab them. Defendant pulled a gun from his waist area and fired at Tino, hitting three fingers of his right hand. The bullet also hit another patron, Darrell Nordahl, passing completely through his thigh. Tino dove to the floor, crawled to the door, and ran out. Defendant followed Tino, firing a second shot at him from inside the bar and at least a third shot outside. Defendant then fled, successfully eluding the pursuit of a passing police officer.
Defendant's gun was found the next day outside a residence. One spent cartridge fired from that gun was found inside the bar and two more outside. Defendant surrendered to the police on December 9, 1992. Three fingers of Tino's right hand were fractured. The treating physician described Nordahl's wound as "serious." Both Tino and Nordahl underwent surgery.
Defendant claimed he acted in self-defense. He presented evidence to support the defense and made an offer of proof of additional evidence that the trial court excluded.
The Court of Appeal opinion, authored by Justice Perley, describes the offer of proof and the trial court's rulings: "Before trial [defendant] submitted a written offer of proof as follows: The offer of proof explained the relevance of this reputation evidence to [defendant's] theory of self-defense, in light of the other evidence to be presented by the defense at trial.
Defendant's wife testified that he had been in prison from April 1990 to November 1991. Before the prison stint, they had lived in El Sobrante. After defendant's release, they moved to Pleasanton "to start a new life," but occasionally visited the El Sobrante area. On the weekend in question, they were in that area for a family function and to attend the funeral of their friend, Anthony Davis. (The witness was not allowed to testify who "killed" Davis.) Around 12:30 a.m., the night of the shooting, defendant's wife received a telephone call from defendant, and she picked him up. His nose was bloody and "pushed to one side." The two drove to a motel in Fremont, where they stayed for over a week.
Defendant testified that he pleaded guilty to charges of assault with a deadly weapon in 1990 and spent 22 months in prison. Before he went to prison, he also fatally shot Jackie Knight, although he was never prosecuted for the incident. Defendant was afraid of "the whole ... Knight crowd." After he got out of prison, he lived in Pleasanton and considered himself "in hiding." He came to West Contra Costa County occasionally to visit his "in-laws," but would not tell anyone when he did. The weekend of the shooting, he was in the area for the "viewing" of the body of his close friend, Anthony Davis. He and a friend went to the Antlers Bar for a...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Dominguez v. Trimble
...validity of the opinion's discussion of the relevance of specific acts of the victim of which the defendant had no knowledge.People v. Minifie (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1055 does not lead to a different conclusion. In that case, the California Supreme Court stated: "A defendant charged with assault......
-
People v. Cornejo
...within the trial court's discretion and will not be overturned absent an abuse of that discretion.” (People v. Minifie (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1055, 1070, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 133, 920 P.2d 1337.) Here, the Facebook post was minimally probative of defendants' claim of self-defense. Even assuming the po......
-
People v. Brooks
...witnesses testified that defendant suspected Kerr was having a sexual relationship with Harvey. (Cf. People v. Minifie (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1055, 1070, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 133, 920 P.2d 1337 [concluding that the court erred in excluding evidence of third party threats that went to the " ‘heart of’ ......
-
Thompson v. Woodford, Civil No. 06CV1758 JAH (NLS).
...to support Thompson's claim that he feared an attack by Hispanic gangmembers including Cooper' (see People v. Minifie (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1055, 1065-1069, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 133, 920 P.2d 1337), the error was not prejudicial. Both Walker and Thompson testified that Thompson assisted Walker when h......
-
Chapter 4 - §3. Character evidence offered to prove propensity
...was imminent in light of all the facts and circumstances one would expect to operate on the defendant's mind. People v. Minifie (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1055, 1064-65; see Pen. C. §§197 to 199; People v. Bates (3d Dist.2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 1, 10; see also People v. DelRio (2d Dist.2020) 54 Cal.App......
-
Relevance and prejudice
...to exclude all evidence on an issue at the heart of a party’s case on the ground of undue consumption of time. People v. Minifie (1996) 13 Cal. 4th 1055, 1070, 56 Cal. Rptr. 2d 133. On the other hand, when the evidence RELEVANCE & PREJUDICE §8:30 California Objections 8-10 is only marginall......
-
Table of Cases null
...§1.9.1(1); §3.6.2 People v. Minervini, 20 Cal. App. 3d 832, 98 Cal. Rptr. 107 (2d Dist. 1971)—Ch. 5-C, §2.1.3(2)(g) People v. Minifie, 13 Cal. 4th 1055, 56 Cal. Rptr. 2d 133, 920 P.2d 1337, 55 A.L.R.5th 835 (1996)—Ch. 4-A, §3.3.1(2); Ch. 6, §6 People v. Miramontes, 189 Cal. App. 4th 1085, 1......
-
Table of cases
...Mincey, People v. (1992) 2 Cal. 4th 408, 6 Cal. Rptr. 2d 822, §§1:210, 5:100, 6:40, 6:120, 6:130, 10:60, 21:90 Minifie, People v. (1996) 13 Cal. 4th 1055, 56 Cal. Rptr. 2d 133, §8:30 Miramontes, People v. (2010) 189 Cal. App. 4th 1085, 117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 239, §11:10 Miranda v. National Emerg......