Opinion ID: 4521869
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence of federal indictment against

Text: defendant Before trial, defendant filed an in limine motion to exclude evidence of the February 26, 2008, federal indictment against him for operating an unlicensed money transmitting business (18 U.S.C. § 1960), an indictment which was originally filed under seal. Defendant sought to specifically exclude any reference to him as a terrorist, which was purportedly included in an LAPD summary report and later shared with the FBI. The terrorist reference was not included in the one-sentence federal indictment. The federal government later dismissed the indictment on September 15, 2008, the same day the prosecution 56 PEOPLE v. FAYED Opinion of the Court by Chin, J. filed a complaint against defendant and Moya for Pamela’s murder. Defendant’s in limine motion alleged that any evidence of uncharged conduct underlying the federal indictment constituted inadmissible character evidence (Evid. Code, § 1101, subd. (d)) and was not otherwise admissible to prove motive, common plan, or identity. (See People v. Ewoldt, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 393.) Because it was undisputed that the federal indictment remained sealed until after Pamela’s murder, defendant argues that it could not have provided a motive to kill Pamela to prevent her from cooperating with federal authorities. The trial court denied defendant’s in limine motion to exclude evidence of the federal indictment and investigation. It concluded such evidence was relevant to defendant’s motive to kill Pamela. It further rejected defendant’s claim of prejudice under Evidence Code section 352, noting that the federal indictment “pales in comparison” to the murder for hire conspiracy charge and suggested that a limiting instruction would address defendant’s concerns. Focusing on the “lack of similarity of motive or direct connection” between the money licensing violation and the murder charge, defendant argues that evidence of the dismissed federal indictment constituted inadmissible character evidence. (See Evid. Code, § 1101, subd. (a).) He maintains that the prosecution failed to show that Pamela agreed to cooperate with federal authorities (and that defendant knew Pamela intended to cooperate), which the prosecution argued provided defendant’s motive to kill Pamela. For reasons that follow, we deny defendant’s evidentiary claim. 57 PEOPLE v. FAYED Opinion of the Court by Chin, J. Though inadmissible to prove a defendant’s criminal propensity, evidence of a defendant’s prior uncharged misconduct is admissible if relevant to prove a material fact at issue in the case, “such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident.” (Evid. Code, § 1101, subd. (b).) “In general, we have explained that ‘[t]he admissibility of other crimes evidence depends on (1) the materiality of the facts sought to be proved, (2) the tendency of the uncharged crimes to prove those facts, and (3) the existence of any rule or policy requiring exclusion of the evidence.’ ” (People v. Kelly (2007) 42 Cal.4th 763, 783.) As pertinent here, “the probativeness of other-crimes evidence on the issue of motive does not necessarily depend on similarities between the charged and uncharged crimes, so long as the offenses have a direct logical nexus.” (People v. Demetrulias (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1, 15.) It is enough that the “ ‘motive for the charged crime arises simply from the commission of the prior offense.’ ” (People v. Thompson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1043, 1115 [evidence of wife’s financial fraud relevant to show motive for killing her husband].) Here, the federal indictment was a key piece of evidence that helped explain the development of defendant’s motive to kill Pamela. Along with the indictment, the investigation related important details of events leading up to Pamela’s murder. The prosecution first described Pamela becoming worried about Goldfinger’s future in light of the federal investigation. Despite defendant’s fierce opposition, she sought to obtain a money transmitting license and withdrew at least $400,000 from the company’s account. The prosecution explained how defendant was furious at Pamela for taking the money, trying to secure a money transmitting license despite 58 PEOPLE v. FAYED Opinion of the Court by Chin, J. defendant’s insistence that they did not need it, and giving federal authorities a reason to closely scrutinize Goldfinger. After filing for divorce, defendant banned Pamela from Goldfinger, alleging that she had embezzled money from the company. Finally, in an e-mail defendant had sent to his friend, Melanie Jackman, complaining about Pamela, he wrote: “I have been letting her get away with this shit for years, and enough is enough.” The prosecution’s theory on why defendant killed Pamela, in short, was not based simply on her possible cooperation with federal authorities; rather, defendant’s increasing animosity and bitterness towards Pamela came to a head when Pamela’s actions threatened to upend their highly profitable business. The circumstantial evidence, as the prosecution underscored, was “overwhelming.” Furthermore, whether there was evidence of an actual agreement that Pamela would cooperate with the federal authorities or whether Pamela and defendant knew about the federal indictment itself are both beside the point. Defense counsel conceded that defendant and Pamela both were aware that federal authorities were investigating Goldfinger. And while there was no evidence that Pamela had an agreement she would testify against defendant, the prosecution argued that defendant killed Pamela “to prevent her from making an agreement, to prevent her from doing that. That’s our point.” Moreover, the record reveals evidence that Pamela at least intended to cooperate with federal authorities. Evidence further suggested that defendant was at least suspicious, if he did not actually know, of Pamela possibly incriminating him in the federal case. “ ‘[T]o be admissible, evidence need not absolutely 59 PEOPLE v. FAYED Opinion of the Court by Chin, J. confirm anything. It is axiomatic that its weight is for the jury.’ ” (People v. Peggese (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 415, 420.) Finally, as a practical matter, because the jury heard defendant’s recorded jailhouse conversation with Smith, some mention of the federal indictment was required to explain why defendant was in federal custody in the first place. We conclude that the probative value of evidence of the dismissed federal indictment and related investigation outweighed any prejudice from admitting the evidence. Further, the trial court instructed the jury that evidence of uncharged misconduct may only be considered “for the limited purpose of determining, if it tends to show, that the defendant had a motive to commit the charged crimes.” (CALJIC No. 2.50.) We presume the jury followed the trial court’s instruction absent evidence to the contrary. (People v. Daveggio and Michaud (2018) 4 Cal.5th 790, 821.)