Case Name: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CORNELIUS PERRY, Defendant and Appellant
Court: Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1980-04-07
Citations: 104 Cal. App. 3d 268
Docket Number: Crim. No. 19485
Parties: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CORNELIUS PERRY, Defendant and Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports, Third Series
Volume: 104
Pages: 268–277

Head Matter:
[Crim. No. 19485.
First Dist., Div. Four.
Apr. 7, 1980.]
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CORNELIUS PERRY, Defendant and Appellant.
Counsel
Peter Bresciani, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Quin Denvir, State Public Defender, and Mark Fogelman, Deputy State Public Defender, for Defendant and Appellant.
George Deukmejian, Attorney General, Robert H. Philibosian, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Edward P. O’Brien, Assistant Attorney General, Gloria F. DeHart and Kristofer Jorstad, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Opinion:
Opinion
CHRISTIAN, J.
Cornelius Perry appeals from a judgment of imprisonment which was rendered after a jury found him guilty of assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)).
Appellant followed and attacked a young woman who was walking in Golden Gate Park in San Francisco. Appellant choked and struck the victim and banged her head against trees. The victim cried out for help, a man came up, and appellant fled. The victim identified appellant at trial from his general appearance and from a curved scar on his forehead.
Jacques Cusin, a teacher who had been supervising a soccer game nearby, had seen appellant a few minutes earlier. When Cusin saw what was happening, he chased appellant. Police officers joined the chase and appellant was captured. The victim immediately identified him.
At trial the defense offered to prove that one Mathew Wolf had robbed and raped a woman in Golden Gate Park three years earlier and that Wolf had robbed and raped another woman in the same park about an hour before the charged offense. The court examined a photograph of Wolf and determined that "except for the race of the man there is nothing similar" before rejecting the offer. Appellant contends that the ruling was error. On the contrary, it was a proper exercise of the court's power, under Evidence Code section 352, to exclude evidence that has minimal probative value in comparison with its potential for uselessly prolonging a trial and confusing the issues. (See People v. Chapman (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 872, 881 [123 Cal.Rptr. 862]; People v. Arline (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 200, 205 [91 Cal.Rptr. 520].)
The judgment is affirmed.
Caldecott, P. J., concurred.