People v. Minifie

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtCHIN; GEORGE
CitationPeople v. Minifie, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 133, 13 Cal.4th 1055, 920 P.2d 1337 (Cal. 1996)
Decision Date29 August 1996
Docket NumberNo. 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.

CHIN, Justice.

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.

I. THE FACTS
A. Prosecution Case

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.

B. Defense Case

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.

1. The Offer of Proof and the Court's Rulings

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: 'Sgt. Celestre of the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department will be called to the stand to testify that the Knight family of the Pinole area has a reputation for violence, a reputation for making threats with the means of carrying them out and a reputation for being extremely dangerous. The Knight family and friends are found in and out of [jail and] prison.' 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.

"The defense evidence was to include testimony that after [defendant] killed Jackie Knight, he had 'been threatened both directly and indirectly. [Defendant] spent time in prison (and jail awaiting prison) for an unrelated [Penal Code section 245] (the prior violent felony). He received an attack in jail while awaiting the plea bargain that landed him in prison. He received threats in prison. His wife heard of threats from friends of the Knights.' The defense was further prepared to prove that [defendant's] visits to his in laws 'were always in secret. He was afraid of the Knights finding out where he was. He was scared that he would be killed. On the night of the shooting, defendant was in town because his close friend Anthony Davis had been killed by a friend of the Knights.... [p] [Defendant] knew Tino by sight. He knew Tino was a very close friend of Jackie Knight. He knew Tino had a reputation for violence. He was scared of Tino and associated Tino with the Knight crowd.'

"The offer of proof concluded: 'Since [defendant] killed Jackie Knight in self-defense, since Tino was one of Jackie's pallbearers, since [defendant] had received threats ever since Jackie's shooting from family and friends of the Knights, Sgt. Celestre should be able to testify that the Knight family and friends have a propensity for violence, are extremely dangerous, and have a reputation for making threats and carrying them out.'

"[Defendant's] position was further elaborated at a hearing outside the presence of the jury. Defense counsel explained that Sergeant Celestre's testimony about the Knight family and friends would be 'very brief ... probably three or four questions.... [p] And specifically I'm talking about in the Knight family Charles Knight, Joey Knight, and the infamous twins, Jess and Jeff Knight.... The whole family is in and out of prison constantly. But the main thing is do they have a propensity for violence in the community, they and their friends? ... [p] [Defendant] is threatened by members and friends of the Knight family. You have to understand that the Knight family is the--I think ... Detective Hale said the Knight family is the meanest, baddest family in West County. [p] So friends--he was threatened by friends.... Steve's wife received threats, both directly and indirectly, ... words to the effect "We're going to get Steve." So Steve is living in fear....'

"Defense counsel continued: '... I really need to bring in the fact of all these threats to create the reason why Steve was afraid and why he wanted to leave the bar and actually why he did what he did. Normally a juror might think, "Well, if Steve was punched by a bar patron--" I mean if they don't hear about all this stuff, they're going to think, "Well, Tino was just a bar patron and he was a pallbearer in the Jackie Knight case, and that's it. So he punched Steve once." [p] Then he reached back for his crutch, and maybe they would think that--if they didn't hear about all the fear that Steve was undergoing of the Knights and Tino, then they might think that Steve acted excessively when he pulled out the gun and when he fired a shot in the direction of Tino. And they might think that, "Well, Steve acted excessively because he had no reason to. He should have just--" maybe he should have just crawled out the front door. That's the reason, and it goes right to the core of my case.... I've prepared the case around this.'

"The trial court excluded evidence of the violent reputation of the Knight family and friends. The court concluded that this evidence was inadmissible under the statutes on character evidence (Evid.Code, § 1100 et seq.) and that, even if the evidence was admissible under these statutes, it should be excluded under Evidence Code section 352 as substantially more prejudicial than probative. The court reasoned that an undue amount of time would be consumed identifying the Knights' friends and the group's violent acts, and that such evidence would tend to confuse the jury. The court also ruled that the defense would be precluded from presenting evidence of threats against [defendant] from anyone other than Tino. The defense conceded that Tino had never previously threatened [defendant].

"Consistent with these rulings, the court sustained the prosecutor's objections when [defendant] attempted to testify that his life had been threatened. [Defendant] was prevented from testifying that his friend Davis had been murdered by a friend of the Knight's [sic ], and the jury was instructed to disregard [defendant's] testimony that, after Davis' murder, he had received a phone call saying 'I was next.' "

2. Evidence the Defense Presented

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 Free

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex
569 cases
  • Dominguez v. Trimble
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 21 mai 2012
    ...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
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 25 mai 2016
    ...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
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 20 mars 2017
    ...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).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • 17 août 2007
    ...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......
  • Get Started for Free
6 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 4 - §3. Character evidence offered to prove propensity
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 4 Statutory Limits on Particular Evidence
    • Invalid date
    ...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
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 mars 2023
    ...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
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...§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
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 mars 2023
    ...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......
  • Get Started for Free