People v. Partida
Decision Date | 21 November 2005 |
Docket Number | No. S127505.,S127505. |
Citation | 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 644,37 Cal.4th 428,122 P.3d 765 |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jose PARTIDA, Defendant and Appellant. |
Verna Wefald, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.
Michael J. Hersek, State Public Defender, and Barry P. Helft, Chief Deputy State Public Defender, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Donald E. De Nicola, Lance E. Winters, John R. Gorey and Laura J. Hartquist, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In this case, the trial court admitted evidence of defendant's gang involvement over his objection that the evidence was more prejudicial than probative. (See Evid.Code, § 352.) The Court of Appeal concluded that the court erred in admitting some of the evidence but found the error harmless. We granted review to decide when, if ever, a trial objection on Evidence Code section 352 grounds preserves the appellate argument that admitting the evidence violated a defendant's federal due process rights and, if the argument is preserved, under what circumstances error of this nature does violate due process.
We conclude that a trial objection must fairly state the specific reason or reasons the defendant believes the evidence should be excluded. If the trial court overrules the objection, the defendant may argue on appeal that the court should have excluded the evidence for a reason asserted at trial. A defendant may not argue on appeal that the court should have excluded the evidence for a reason not asserted at trial. A defendant may, however, argue that the asserted error in overruling the trial objection had the legal consequence of violating due process.
Defendant argues on appeal primarily, perhaps exclusively, that the trial court should have excluded the evidence for the reason asserted at trial—that it was more prejudicial than probative. He also argues that this asserted error violated his right to due process. He may make that argument. To the extent, if any, he argues that due process required the court to exclude the evidence for a reason not included in the trial objection, that argument is forfeited because he did not object to the evidence on that basis at trial.
On the merits, we accept the Court of Appeal's conclusion that the trial court erred in overruling defendant's trial objection as to some of the gang evidence. We also conclude that error of the kind asserted here rises to the level of a due process violation only if it renders the trial fundamentally unfair. Finally, we also accept the Court of Appeal's conclusions that the perceived error was harmless under state law and did not render the trial fundamentally unfair.
On August 11, 2001, Jesse Moreno and three companions were ordering food at a Tacos El Unico taco stand in the Compton area of Los Angeles. A passenger in a green van, identified as defendant, asked Moreno, "Where are you from?" Moreno and a companion told defendant, "We don't bang." Defendant responded, "I'm from USV, Unos Sin Verguenza." The van then left but soon turned around. Later defendant approached Moreno on foot, holding a gun. When defendant pointed the gun at Moreno, Moreno tried to flee, but defendant shot him from behind. As he did so, defendant said, "Fuck you, I'm from USV, Unos Sin Verguenza." Moreno died of two gunshot wounds in the back.
Defendant was charged with Moreno's murder. At trial, after a pretrial hearing, and over defendant's objection, the court permitted a sheriff's detective to testify as an expert on criminal street gangs. He testified that in English, "Unos Sin Verguenza" means "those without shame" or "ones without shame." He provided substantial testimony about gangs, including how they mark out their territory, and how they commit violent crimes to enhance their reputation. Just before the detective testified, defense counsel renewed on the record that he was objecting to the gang evidence on the basis of Evidence Code section 352 because it was
A jury found defendant guilty of Moreno's murder in the first degree and found true a weapon enhancement allegation. The court sentenced him to prison for a total of 50 years to life. He appealed.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. It found that, although much of the gang evidence was properly admitted, the trial court abused its discretion under Evidence Code section 352 in admitting some of it. It also concluded that defendant's trial objection to the gang evidence as more prejudicial than probative (Evid.Code, § 352) preserved for appeal the argument that erroneously admitting the evidence violated his due process rights. It held, however, that defendant's due process rights were not violated because admitting the gang evidence did not make the trial fundamentally unfair. Finally, it found the perceived error harmless under the test for state law error established in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836, 299 P.2d 243; it found no reasonable probability defendant would have obtained a more favorable outcome had the evidence been excluded.
We granted defendant's petition for review.
Defendant objected to the gang evidence at trial on the ground that it should have been excluded under Evidence Code section 352 because it was more prejudicial than probative.1 He did not object at trial that admitting the evidence would violate his due process rights. On appeal, he argues that the court erred in overruling the objection and also that the asserted error violated his constitutional right to due process. He does not clearly specify which Constitution, state or federal, he is relying on, but the briefing generally discusses the federal Constitution. Accordingly, we will focus on defendant's federal due process claim.
The first question we must decide is whether petitioner's objection under Evidence Code section 352 preserved his due process argument on appeal. The question is one of statutory interpretation. Evidence Code section 353 provides, as relevant, "A verdict or finding shall not be set aside, nor shall the judgment or decision based thereon be reversed, by reason of the erroneous admission of evidence unless: [¶] (a) There appears of record an objection to or a motion to exclude or to strike the evidence that was timely made and so stated as to make clear the specific ground of the objection or motion ...." (Italics added.) (People v. Seijas (2005) 36 Cal.4th 291, 302, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 493, 114 P.3d 742.)
A century ago, long before the Evidence Code existed, we explained the need for a specific objection. (Bundy v. Sierra Lumber Co. (1906) 149 Cal. 772, 776, 87 P. 622; see People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, 187-188, 279 Cal.Rptr. 720, 807 P.2d 949 [citing Bundy].)
The objection requirement is necessary in criminal cases because a "contrary rule would deprive the People of the opportunity to cure the defect at trial and would `permit the defendant to gamble on an acquittal at his trial secure in the knowledge that a conviction would be reversed on appeal.'" (People v. Rogers (1978) 21 Cal.3d 542, 548, 146 Cal.Rptr. 732, 579 P.2d 1048.) (People v. Morris, supra, 53 Cal.3d at pp. 187-188, 279 Cal.Rptr. 720, 807 P.2d 949.)
Thus, the requirement of a specific objection serves important purposes. But, to further these purposes, the requirement must be interpreted reasonably, not formalistically. "Evidence Code section 353 does not exalt form over substance." (People v. Morris, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 188, 279 Cal.Rptr. 720, 807 P.2d 949.) The statute does not require any particular form of objection. Rather, "the objection must be made in such a way...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Dykes
...error on the same ground asserted on appeal results in a forfeiture of the issue on appeal. (People v. Partida (2006) 37 Cal.4th 428, 433-435, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 644, 122 P.3d 765; People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 357, 110 Cal. Rptr.2d 272, 28 P.3d 34.) Defendant asserts that the forfeitu......
-
People v. Keo
..." ( People v. Gomez (2018) 6 Cal.5th 243, 286, 240 Cal.Rptr.3d 315, 430 P.3d 791, italics added; accord, People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 433, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 644, 122 P.3d 765.) As the Partida court explained, " ‘The reason for the requirement is manifest: a specifically grounded ob......
-
People v. Winkler
...under state law, results in a due process violation only if it makes the trial fundamentally unfair." ( People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 439, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 644, 122 P.3d 765.) "Absent fundamental unfairness, state law error in admitting evidence is subject to the traditional Watson......
-
People v. Daveggio
...as "ammunition ... found in the van ." Accordingly, we doubt these claims of error are preserved. (See People v . Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 435, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 644, 122 P.3d 765.) In any event, the admission of this evidence, if erroneous, was plainly harmless. Other, far more shocking......
-
Table of cases
...4th 263, 60 Cal. Rptr. 3d 868, §7:150 Parson, People v. (2008) 44 Cal. 4th 332, 79 Cal. Rptr. 3d 269, §21:120 Partida, People v. (2005) 37 Cal. 4th 428, 35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 644, §1:130 Pate v. Channel Lumber Co. (1997) 51 Cal. App. 4th 1447, 59 Cal. Rptr. 2d 919, §14:50 Paterno v. State of Cal......
-
Objections, motions and related procedures
...A party who fails to comply with Evidence Code §353 fails to preserve the challenge to the evidence on appeal. People v. Partida, (2005) 37 Cal. 4th 428, 433-434, 35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 644; SCI California Funeral Services, Inc. v. Five Bridges Foundation (2012) 203 Cal. App. 4th 549, 563, 137 Ca......
-
Criminal appeals and civil writs
...foundation, modify the offer of proof, or take other steps designed to minimize the prospect of reversal. See People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 434. However, reviewing courts have traditionally excused parties for failing to raise an issue at trial where an objection would have been ......
-
Table of Cases null
...People v. Parson, 44 Cal. 4th 332, 79 Cal. Rptr. 3d 269, 187 P.3d 1 (2008)—Ch. 5-A, §2.1.1(1)(b)[3][b]; §5.1.3(3)(a) People v. Partida, 37 Cal. 4th 428, 35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 644, 122 P.3d 765 (2005)—Ch. 6, §4.3.1 People v. Patino, 26 Cal. App. 4th 1737, 32 Cal. Rptr. 2d 345 (5th Dist. 1994)—Ch.......