People v. Williams
| Decision Date | 06 March 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. B130417.,B130417. |
| Citation | 78 Cal.App.4th 1118,93 Cal.Rptr.2d 356 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Byron Keith WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant. |
Sanjay T. Kumar, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and G. Tracey Letteau, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Appellant contends that the trial court erroneously denied his Wheeler motion,1 his conviction was not supported by substantial evidence, cumulative evidentiary errors and pervasive prosecutorial misconduct require reversal, and cross-examination was unduly restricted. We conclude that the trial court erred with regard to the Wheeler challenge but that none of appellant's other arguments have merit. We therefore conditionally reverse the judgment and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings. Depending on the findings of the trial court, the judgment shall either be reinstated or a new trial ordered.
On September 4, 1998, appellant, Byron Keith Williams, was charged by information in count 1 of inflicting corporal injury on his spouse, in violation of Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (a), and in count 2 of assault with a deadly weapon by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1). The information alleged as to count 2 that appellant personally used a dangerous and deadly weapon, within the meaning of Penal Code section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(23); and as to both counts 1 and 2, that appellant personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim, within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.7, subdivision (d).
A jury convicted appellant of both counts, and found the additional allegations to be true. On March 3, 1999, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence, placed appellant on formal probation for a period of five years, and ordered appellant to serve 365 days in the Los Angeles County jail. His notice of appeal was filed the same day.
Appellant's wife, Siobhan, testified that she and appellant began arguing at approximately 6:30 a.m. on June 3, 1997, after she noticed that he had taken $120 from her purse to pay the gardener. After about 20 or 30 minutes, Siobhan decided to leave. She dressed, put her purse and her four-year-old son Lee in the car, and returned to her bedroom to get some clothes. When she told appellant she was leaving, he stomped, said, "You're not leaving," blocked her way, and grabbed her wrists and arms. She tried to get away from him but found the television blocking her way. While appellant held her by the arm, she grabbed the metal footboard of their king-size bed, picked it up, and used it to hit the desk near the keyboard of appellant's computer. This further angered appellant. He pulled the footboard from her hand and hit her in the face with it. Siobhan felt pain and grabbed her face. Appellant hit her again with the footboard, this time across her arms and chest, causing her to bend over and fall.
Siobhan could not breathe after the second blow, and her hands were full of blood. She saw appellant raise the footboard and said, "Don't hit me, my mouth." Appellant then put the board down. Siobhan dropped to the floor, crying, and appellant said, "I will call 911." He took the car keys out of her hand and left. After a few minutes, she went into the bathroom. When she looked in the mirror and saw blood coming from her mouth and nose, she screamed or yelled, but appellant did not return. Siobhan remained in the bathroom for about thirty minutes trying to stop the bleeding. She then went downstairs where she found the front door wide open and no one in the house but her four-year-old son, Lee. Her car was no longer in the driveway. Her purse, with her medical cards in it, had been left in the car and was gone with it.
Siobhan called her employer, put some ice in a towel, and waited on the couch, thinking appellant had gone to get help. She fell asleep, and when she awoke about four and one-half hours later, there was still no one else there, except Lee. Upon awakening, Siobhan found a message from appellant on her answering machine telling her that the car was parked around the corner. She went to the car and drove to a dentist. The dentist pulled one damaged tooth, replacing it with a removable tooth plate, and did a root canal on another, which later turned black. Her treatment that day took about five hours. She was prescribed pain medication and antibiotics and left the dentist at about 9 p.m.
The next day, her brother and his wife took her to the police station, where they waited about three hours for someone to take a report, to no avail. Siobhan was not feeling well, so she went home, and went to bed. Her brother called the police, and woke her when they came.
Siobhan allowed appellant to move back into the home about one month after the incident, and they separated again in March 1998. Although they were still married at the time of trial, they were not living together.
Los Angeles County Sheriffs Deputy Craig Parkhill went to the Williams home on June 5, 1997, and spoke to Siobhan for about 20 minutes. Deputy Parkhill recounted what Siobhan had told him, which was, with some exceptions, which we will discuss below, consistent with her testimony at trial. Parkhill observed Siobhan's injuries, including those to her mouth and face, and also a large bruise near her clavicle, under her right shoulder.
Cathy Tucker, a licensed dental assistant employed in the dental office where Siobhan sought treatment, testified. She first gave factual testimony that Siobhan came into the office at 4:20 p.m., on June 3, 1997, with a split lip, a significantly swollen mouth, extensive bleeding, and a loose tooth. Siobhan was given emergency treatment, consisting of an exam, x-rays, tooth extraction, root canal, and insertion of a stay plate. The treatment took four and one-half hours. Tucker then gave expert testimony: based upon her observation of approximately 200 impact injuries, she opined that Siobhan's injuries were caused by a high-impact blow, rather than a low-impact blow.
Sergeant Corey Kennedy of the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department testified that he conducted a videotaped interview of Siobhan on June 18, 1997. An edited version of the tape was played for the jury.
Jeri Darr, a domestic violence counselor, testified on rebuttal that it is not unusual for a victim of domestic violence to lie or not tell his or her spouse's family and others about the abuse, due to feelings of shame and fear of isolation. A victim is much more likely to tell the truth within the first 24 to 48 hours after an attack.
Appellant testified that it was he who had put Lee in the car, because he was going to take him to preschool. At the time, Siobhan was still in bed, but got up and yelled at him when she saw him take money from her purse for the gardener. In her anger, she moved about the bedroom, pushing furniture. He denied touching her, and claimed he was busy trying to catch everything she pushed. He denied ever standing in front of the doorway, or preventing his wife from leaving the room. He said that when Siobhan picked up the footboard, it appeared she was trying to smash the computer, so he grabbed it. He pulled in one direction, and she pulled in another. Siobhan was accidentally hit with it when she suddenly let go, causing him to stumble back and the end of the footboard caught her in the mouth. He denied intentionally hitting her, and claimed she was struck just this one time. As a result of this blow, Siobhan fell to the side and held her mouth. Appellant asked her if she were all right, and tried to turn her over to see if there was any damage. She glared at him, got up, and walked into the bathroom without saying anything. He did not see blood on her face, but he admitted he did not get a good look at her face. He did not think she was badly injured.
Appellant went downstairs, took Lee out of the car, put him in the house, and drove away. He claimed he closed the front door, and denied that he took the car keys from Siobhan's hand after she was injured. Instead, he took the keys out of his wife's purse earlier while in the bedroom when he took the money for the gardener. He denied taking her medical cards with him. He drove around for awhile, then called home from a telephone booth, hanging up when the answering machine picked up. Appellant called again at approximately 10 a.m., left a message that he was going to return the car. Later, he called again, leaving the message about where he had left the car, and that the keys were in the ashtray.
Appellant went to stay with friends in Whittier. He had no further contact with his wife for approximately one month. Siobhan later asked him to move back in, and he did. He told her that he thought the incident had been an accident, and she said nothing either in contradiction or agreement.
Appellant's mother, Jean Williams-Oliver testified that Siobhan told her the incident was an accident, and that Siobhan has since then asked her for money.
After the prosecution had excused two men from the jury panel, appellant objected, citing People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d 258, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748. Appellant's counsel argued that the prosecution was systematically excluding men from the jury panel. The trial court refused...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v. McDowell
...see alsoPeople v. Brown (2004) 33 Cal.4th 892, 895-896, 905-907; People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073, 1087-1088; People v. Williams (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1129.)Expert testimony on these subjects is relevant to the credibility of the person who has been battered because it may as......
-
People v. Franklin
...discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges based on gender violates a defendant's right to a fair trial. (People v. Williams (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1125.) Here, defendant made a Batson/Wheeler motion during the jury selection process, the prosecution was using its perempto......
-
Mcelvain v. Lewis
...The foregoing testimony by the victim is sufficient to permit evidence of the battered women's syndrome. People v. Williams, 78 Cal. App.4th 1118, 1129, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 356 (2000); Gadlin, 78 Cal.App.4th at 593, 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 890. Further, the victim's credibility was crucial in the crimina......
-
People v. Brown
...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 8......
-
Table of cases
...Cal. Rptr. 3d 711, §19:20 Williams, People v. (2002) 102 Cal. App. 4th 995, 125 Cal. Rptr. 2d 884, §9:120 Williams, People v. (2000) 78 Cal. App. 4th 1118, 93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 356, §§2:70, 17:60 Williams, People v. (1996) 46 Cal. App. 4th 1767, 54 Cal. Rptr. 2d 521, §§17:110, 17:140, 22:160 Wi......
-
Expert witnesses
...this case, the testimony was used by the defense to show a reasonable belief in the need for self-defense. People v. Williams (2000) 78 Cal. App. 4th 1118, 93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 356. In a prosecution for spousal abuse, the prosecution used the expert as rebuttal testimony after the victim’s cred......
-
Jury selection
...Objections 2-12 • Women. Di Donato v. Santini (1991) 232 Cal. App. 3d 721, 731, 283 Cal. Rptr. 751. • Men [ People v. Williams (2000) 78 Cal. App. 4th 1118, 1125, 93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 356], and specifically white men [ People v. Willis (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 811, 813, 118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 301]. • Lesb......
-
Table of Cases null
...5-E, §2.1.2 People v. Williams, 28 Cal. 4th 408, 121 Cal. Rptr. 2d854, 49 P.3d 203 (2002)—Ch. 1, §4.13.7(2)(a)[3] People v. Williams, 78 Cal. App. 4th 1118, 93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 356 (2d Dist. 2000)—Ch. 4-A, §7.1.1(2) People v. Williams, 20 Cal. 4th 119, 83 Cal. Rptr. 2d 275, 973 P.2d 52 (1999)—......