1 

Filed 3/5/14 P. v. Matheson CA3 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 

(Tehama) 

---- 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

TROY MATHESON, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

C072351 

(Super. Ct. No. NCR82101) 

 Thirty-one-year-old defendant Troy Matheson was tried for the first degree murder 

of his thirty-five-year-old brother Ronnie Matheson (Ronnie). A jury found defendant 

guilty of voluntary manslaughter, after telling the court it was having trouble deciding 

between second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter. The court sentenced him to 

seven years in prison. 

 Before trial, the court ruled that defendant could not present expert witness 

testimony regarding the effects of Ronnie abusing defendant and their family because the 

evidence was inadmissible under Evidence Code section 1107, which allows for expert 
2 

witness testimony on intimate partner battering.1 The court expressly stated it was 

excluding the evidence based on its finding that the evidence did not qualify under 

Evidence Code section 1107. 

 On appeal, defendant contends the trial court violated his constitutional right to 

present a complete defense when it excluded this expert testimony regarding the effect of 

Ronnie’s abuse of defendant and their family and that any error in failing to preserve the 

issue was ineffective assistance by defense counsel. 

 We hold that defendant forfeited his constitutional contention by failing to secure 

a ruling from the trial court on this theory and another theory he had raised for the 

admissibility of this evidence (social framework testimony). We further hold that 

defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to secure these rulings or for failing to 

seek admission of the testimony on other grounds. As we explain, defendant was not 

prejudiced by counsel’s omissions. The evidence that Ronnie abused defendant and their 

family was already before the jury as was the evidence of the psychological effects of 

that abuse. Further, the instructions told the jury it could consider Ronnie’s abuse in 

deciding whether defendant’s conduct and beliefs were reasonable, which went to 

whether defendant was justified in killing Ronnie. Finally, the jury appeared not to be 

focused on whether the killing was justified but rather on whether the killing was murder 

or manslaughter. 

 

1 Evidence Code section 1107, subdivision (a) provides as follows: “In a criminal 

action, expert testimony is admissible by either the prosecution or the defense regarding 

intimate partner battering and its effects, including the nature and effect of physical, 

emotional, or mental abuse on the beliefs, perceptions, or behavior of victims of domestic 

violence, except when offered against a criminal defendant to prove the occurrence of the 

act or acts of abuse which form the basis of the criminal charge.” 
3 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

A 

The Prosecution’s Case 

 On July 3, 2011, a group of defendant’s family members had gone to the 

fairgrounds to watch fireworks in Anderson. The group included defendant; his 

girlfriend; his daughter; Ronnie; one of their sisters, Ronnda Wooden (Ronnda); and 

Ronnda’s husband, George Samuel Wooden (Sam). They were all having a good time, 

and some were drinking alcohol. 

 After the fireworks, defendant drove his girlfriend and daughter back to the Live 

Oak Road home that he shared on weekends with Ronnie. Defendant cooked his 

girlfriend and daughter something to eat, and then the three of them went to sleep in one 

of the bedrooms. 

 Ronnda and Sam then drove a “very intoxicated” Ronnie back to the same house. 

Upon seeing the kitchen, Ronnie became angry that there was a “big mess” and said that 

“[defendant] needed to clean it up.” Ronnie awoke a sleeping defendant in the bedroom, 

swore at him, and told him he was disrespecting him and needed to clean up the mess. 

Ronnie and defendant began fist fighting. Ronnda made defendant’s girlfriend and 

daughter leave the room and then Ronnda and Sam separated the brothers. Sam followed 

defendant into the kitchen while Ronnda tried to help Ronnie to his bedroom. 

 Defendant got a knife from the kitchen and walked back down the hallway to the 

bedrooms, saying he “was protecting his family.” Sam tried to hold defendant back with 

his hands, but defendant pushed Sam out of the way and said, “ ‘get the fuck out of my 

way or I’ll kill you too.’ ” Ronnda, who was still in the process of escorting Ronnie to 

his bedroom, noticed something in defendant’s hand, so she crouched down. Defendant 

then stabbed Ronnie twice, once on his arm and once on his back. Ronnda did not see 

Ronnie trying to hit defendant when the stabbing occurred. Ronnie stumbled back and 

told Ronnda to call 911, which she did. 
4 

 Ronnda tended to Ronnie’s wounds in the entryway while she and Ronnie waited 

for the ambulance. Defendant then charged at Ronnie, knocking him to the ground. 

Defendant told him, “ ‘I’m going to kill you’ ” and “ ‘fucking die, you worthless piece of 

shit.’ ” Ronnie was “knocked out” and “making this . . . gurgling noise.” Ronnda got 

between the brothers and told defendant to leave, which he did. 

 Police took Ronnie to the hospital where he died from blood loss caused by the 

stab wound to his back that had punctured his lung and the pericardium around the heart. 

 Police stopped defendant as he was driving away from the house. Defendant said 

he had been awakened by his brother punching him. He fought back, then retrieved a 

knife, stabbed his brother in the shoulder, and then “punched him one more time in the 

face” because “he was pissed off at all of the times his brother picked on him.” 

 The following morning, police took defendant to the police station to interview 

him. Defendant said he grabbed the knife to go in the bedroom and get his daughter and 

when he did, Ronnie was “acting up again ready to swing on [him] and that’s when [he] 

stabbed [Ronnie.]” When defendant went to retrieve the knife, he thought his girlfriend 

was not in the room and he was not sure if his daughter was. Defendant “was pissed at 

[Ronnie for] being so fucking physical.” Defendant went back and hit Ronnie because of 

“childhood . . . memories” that included Ronnie punching him without provocation. 

B 

The Defense 

 Defendant lived in the Live Oak Road home with Ronnie on the weekends and 

with a roommate in a different house on the weekdays, but defendant was planning on 

moving out altogether because he and Ronnie had “got[ten] into numerous heated 

altercations” and defendant “figured [he] needed to separate from [Ronnie] . . . so it 

didn’t come to violence.” 

 On the night defendant killed Ronnie, Ronnie came into defendant’s bedroom and 

yelled at him about leaving the eggs out. Defendant got out of bed, approached Ronnie, 
5 

and said, “ ‘Seriously?’ ” Ronnie responded that he was sick of defendant disrespecting 

him and then hit defendant. The brothers started fist fighting and defendant told his 

girlfriend to grab his daughter. Defendant then grabbed Ronnie and asked Ronnie why 

he was doing this. Ronnie gave him “the angry face,” the one showing he was mad at 

defendant. Ronnie broke free of defendant and then punched defendant in the temple. 

Reeling from the punch, defendant ran into Sam, who was now in the bedroom, and 

defendant ran out. Defendant looked around for his daughter but could not see her. He 

began to panic, thinking she might still be in the room, so he “grabbed the knife for 

protection.” He “fear[ed] that [Ronnie] would grab [defendant’s daughter] in order to get 

to [defendant].” When defendant went back into the bedroom, he “pushed on Sam’s left 

shoulder to locate [his] daughter in the room [and] was hit by Ronnie.”2 Defendant 

reacted by stabbing Ronnie in the shoulder. When Ronnie was on the front porch being 

aided by Ronnda, defendant hit Ronnie two more times “because of childhood memories” 

that included Ronnie repeatedly sucker punching him. 

 Defendant also presented detailed testimony from his mother, his sister Jolene 

Matheson (Jolene), and himself about the abuse Ronnie had perpetrated on the family and 

the effects of that abuse.3

 

2 Defendant’s daughter had already come out of the room, but defendant did not 

know that at the time. 

3 We explain this testimony in detail in part II of the discussion. 
6 

DISCUSSION 

I 

Defendant Has Forfeited His Contention Relating To The Admissibility Of The Expert 

Testimony By Failing To Secure A Ruling From The Trial Court 

On The Theories He Advances In The Appellate Court 

 Defendant contends the court violated his constitutional right to present a 

complete defense when it excluded the expert testimony. He argues that the expert 

testimony was admissible to assist the jury in evaluating the facts from defendant’s 

perspective. Defendant has forfeited this argument by not raising it in the trial court. 

A 

Facts Leading Up To The Trial Court’s Ruling Excluding The 

Expert Testimony And The Trial Court’s Ruling 

 In seeking to introduce the expert testimony, defense counsel filed a two-page 

“offer of proof regarding testimony of defense expert.” (Capitalization omitted.) In it, he 

argued “[d]efendants are entitled to present a defense to the charges against them at trial,” 

this includes affirmative defenses, and “without the assistance and testimony of his expert 

witness,” defendant “will have no means of establishing his affirmative defenses,” which 

here included lawful self-defense and defense of others. Defense counsel referred to the 

expert witness’s family violence assessment for defendant. 

 The assessment was based on a review of the murder, interviews with defendant 

and his family members, and the expert’s recounting of the effects of domestic violence 

on children and families and the coercive control an abuser has on the abused. The 

assessment also contained a discussion of Evidence Code section 1107 regarding the 

admissibility of expert evidence regarding intimate partner battering and why Ronnie’s 

abuse of defendant qualified as intimate partner battering. 

 Thereafter, the prosecutor filed an in limine motion to exclude the expert 

testimony, arguing that it did not qualify as intimate partner battering and in any event it 
7 

was excludable under Evidence Code section 352 because there was no evidence to 

support a theory that defendant killed Ronnie in self-defense or defense of others. The 

prosecutor further argued that if the court did allow the testimony, the expert could not 

give her opinion about defendant’s actual state of mind, could not testify defendant’s 

actions were reasonable, and could not testify about inadmissible hearsay. 

 After reviewing these pleadings, the court ordered the parties to file further 

pleadings on whether the expert testimony fit within Evidence Code section 1107. In 

response, the prosecutor filed a short brief arguing a “brotherly relationship” did not 

qualify. Defense counsel filed a brief arguing that it did, and that if it did not then the 

evidence was admissible under the category of “ ‘social frame work [sic] testimony.’ ” 

Defense counsel further argued that so long as there was evidence from which a jury 

could infer that the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter was committed, 

whether based on heat of passion or imperfect self-defense, the court had to instruct on 

voluntary manslaughter. 

 The court then held a hearing on the admissibility of the expert testimony and had 

a lengthy discussion with the parties on Evidence Code section 1107. The court prefaced 

its ruling by stating, “[t]he sole question before me is, does [section] 1107 allow the 

brother of the victim to present the intimate partner battering defense identified by that 

section?” The court then ruled it “does not believe that Evidence Code section 1107 

applies to a brother” and the expert testimony could not “be used by the defendant under 

the authority of Evidence Code section 1107.” 

B 

Defendant Has Forfeited His Issues Relating To 

The Admissibility Of The Expert Witness Testimony 

 On appeal, defendant does not contend that the expert testimony was admissible 

under Evidence Code section 1107. Rather, he argues the expert witness testimony was 

admissible to assist the jury in evaluating the facts from his perspective, which he raised 
8 

in his “supplemental briefing” to the trial court as “ ‘social frame work [sic] testimony.’ ” 

Defendant has forfeited this contention and his constitutional contention by failing to 

secure a ruling on them from the trial court. 

 When a defendant raises an issue in the trial court, but the trial court does not rule 

on the issue, it is the defendant’s obligation “to press for such a ruling and to object . . . 

until he obtain[s] one.” (People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, 195, disapproved on 

another point in People v. Stansbury (1995) 9 Cal.4th 824, 830, fn. 1.) When a defendant 

fails to press for such a ruling, he “depriv[es] the trial court of the opportunity to correct 

potential error.” (Morris, at p. 195.) 

 That is what happened here. In his first motion, defense counsel raised the issue 

of defendant’s right to present a defense through the testimony of the expert, arguing 

“[d]efendants are entitled to present a defense to the charges against them at trial,” and 

“without the assistance and testimony of his expert witness,” defendant “will have no 

means of establishing his affirmative defenses,” which here included lawful self-defense 

and defense of others. In his supplemental briefing, defendant added the argument that 

the expert testimony was admissible under the category of “ ‘social frame work [sic] 

testimony.’ ” However, when it came time for the hearing on these matters, the court 

stated the sole question before it was whether the evidence was admissible under 

Evidence Code section 1107 regarding intimate partner battering and then proceeded to 

exclude the evidence after considering that code section only. At no point did defense 

counsel mention that he had raised an alternative theory of admissibility (the social 

framework theory) or that the court’s ruling excluding the evidence deprived defendant of 

his constitutional right to present a defense. In failing to do so, defense counsel forfeited 

these arguments on appeal. (People v. Morris, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 195; In re Sheena 

K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 880, fn. 1 [“correct term is ‘forfeiture’ rather than ‘waiver’ ”].) 
9 

II 

Defense Counsel Was Not Ineffective 

 Defendant contends his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to press for rulings 

on the admissibility of the expert witness testimony under the social framework theory 

and a constitutional theory and for failing to seek admission of this testimony under 

Evidence Code section 801, which pertains to the admissibility of expert testimony. As 

we explain, we disagree that trial counsel was ineffective because his conduct did not 

prejudice defendant. (See People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 718 [deficient 

performance is the first prong of an ineffective assistance of counsel analysis and 

prejudice is the second].)4 The evidence that Ronnie abused defendant and their family 

and the evidence of the psychological effects of that abuse was already before the jury, 

the instructions told the jury it could consider Ronnie’s abuse in deciding whether 

defendant’s conduct and beliefs were reasonable, and the jury appeared not to be focused 

on whether the killing was justified but rather on whether the killing was murder or 

manslaughter. 

 In defense counsel’s initial motion to the court, he stated that “without the 

assistance and testimony of his expert witness,” defendant “will have no means of 

establishing his affirmative defenses,” which here included lawful self-defense and 

defense of others. This turned out not to be true. At trial, defendant was able to present 

testimony through his mother, his sister Jolene, and himself that Ronnie engaged in a 

pattern of physical abuse against defendant and other family members that started when 

the boys were young. 

 Their mother testified that when her husband left the family, Ronnie became the 

father figure and would “hit [defendant] for no reason.” Ronnie wanted to “put down his 

 

4 Here, we do not need to analyze whether defense counsel’s performance was 

deficient, because it was not prejudicial. 
10 

rules and his regulations as to how [to] run a family and . . . it would be done his way.” 

“[H]e had like this bipolar grandiosity, this anger issue, and he tried to self medicate it 

with marijuana and alcohol.” “He has always threatened somebody, depend[ing] on what 

kind of mood he is in.” “Sometimes he can be the sweetest person in the world . . . . But 

if things go the wrong way on him, he can get very violent and very angry and relentless 

until he gets his answer or whatever he is trying to prove he wants. . . .” Once, Ronnie 

threw hot vegetables at her because “they were cooked wrong.” About one month before 

defendant killed Ronnie, Ronnie was physically violent with her. Ronnie asked their 

mother how to spell red and instead (as a joke) she spelled blue. Ronnie came at her with 

a chair, grabbed her glasses from her face, and when defendant tried to protect their 

mother, Ronnie said, “ ‘Fuck that, I am going to kill her’ ” and came at her again with the 

chair until defendant was able to help their mother get away. 

 Their sister Jolene, who was three years younger than defendant, knew Ronnie to 

be “very hot tempered.” When they were young, Ronnie would “raise his fist first” at 

defendant, but defendant would walk away from it. “Ronnie’s thing” when the brothers 

were fighting was “chok[ing] people out.” She had seen Ronnie “choke [defendant] out a 

few times.” 

 Defendant was afraid of his brother because he had done “bad” things to him and 

“even worse” things to others. As a child, defendant “got a lot of abuse from him.” 

Ronnie would trip defendant, causing him to fall on his face. Ronnie would kick 

defendant in the shin with a steel-toed boot. As an adult, once Ronnie “busted out the 

back window” of a car where defendant was sitting. He had moved to the Live Oak 

home with Ronnie because he loved his brother and wanted to give him more chances. 

 Based partly on this evidence, the court instructed the jury that the homicide was 

justified if done for either self-defense or defense of another. Defendant had to 

reasonably believe that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend 

against the imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury or the 
11 

imminent “danger of being physically accosted or injured.” “If you find that Ronnie 

Matheson threatened or harmed the defendant or others in the past, you may consider that 

information in deciding whether the defendant’s conduct and beliefs were reasonable.” 

“Someone who has been threatened or harmed by a person in the past is justified in acting 

more quickly or taking greater self[-]defense measures against that person.” 

 What the expert witness testimony would have addressed (as reflected in the 

assessment) was the psychological explanation of the effects of Ronnie’s behavior on his 

victims, i.e., that Ronnie had “achieved dominance through his bullying tactics,” that all 

of the incidents of abuse Ronnie perpetrated were a “pattern of coercive control,” and that 

victims such as defendant exhibit a “ ‘paradoxical attachment’ ” to their abuser. (See 

People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073, 1086 [an expert witness can testify as to 

the effects of the batterer’s behavior on the victim].) 

 But the jury had already heard similar testimony. As to achieving dominance 

through bullying tactics and the pattern of control, Ronnie became the father figure of the 

household and wanted to “put down his rules and his regulations as to how [to] run a 

family and . . . it would be done his way.” “He has always threatened somebody, 

depend[ing] on what kind of mood he is in.” As to the paradoxical attachment, defendant 

testified he had moved to the Live Oak Road home with Ronnie because he loved his 

brother and wanted to give him more chances. Defendant provides us no reason to 

believe that the jury would have viewed the evidence of the psychological effects of 

Ronnie’s behavior differently had it come from the expert. 

 Finally, and importantly, it appears the jury was not focused on acquittal as a 

realistic possibility. When the jury was having difficulty reaching a verdict, it told the 

court it was split between second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter. 

Defendant’s reasonable belief in the need to defend himself or his daughter, which is at 

what the expert’s testimony would have been directed, was relevant to determine whether 

the killing was justified, not as a distinguishing factor between murder and manslaughter. 
12 

 For these reasons, defendant was not prejudiced by defense counsel’s failing to 

press for rulings on the admissibility of the expert witness testimony under the social 

framework theory and a constitutional theory and for failing to seek admission of this 

testimony under Evidence Code section 801 pertaining to expert testimony. 

DISPOSITION 

 The judgment is affirmed. 

 ROBIE , Acting P. J. 

We concur: 

 BUTZ , J. 

 MAURO , J.