Opinion ID: 1258767
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inadmissibility of Other Offenses Subject to Plea Bargain

Text: (2) Defendant next contends that some of the evidence of his other molestations and assaults was inadmissible because the charges were dismissed pursuant to plea bargains. Thus, the Arizona charges against defendant relating to Dawn F. were dismissed on condition he plead guilty to a Missouri offense. An oral copulation charge involving Lashonda B. was dismissed as part of a bargain whereby defendant pleaded guilty to a felony child molestation offense. Similar bargaining reduced the charges against defendant as to victims Linda G. and Melinda R. Defendant asserts that plea bargains are constitutional contracts subject to due process principles of fundamental fairness. (See People v. Mancheno (1982) 32 Cal.3d 855, 860 [187 Cal. Rptr. 441, 654 P.2d 211].) He points to the general rule that implicit in such bargains is the understanding that the defendant will suffer no adverse sentencing consequences by reason of the facts underlying, and solely pertaining to, the dismissed count. ( People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754, 758 [159 Cal. Rptr. 696, 602 P.2d 396].) Defendant also urges that double jeopardy principles bar use of any offenses that were transactionally related to offenses dismissed pursuant to plea bargains. In People v. Melton (1988) 44 Cal.3d 713, 755 [244 Cal. Rptr. 867, 750 P.2d 741], we determined that Harvey's ( supra, 25 Cal.3d 754) general rule was inapplicable to capital sentencing. As we stated in Melton, Nothing in Harvey implies that it would be `improper and unfair' for a capital sentencing jury to consider the circumstances of prior dismissed or bargained charges when deciding whether death is the appropriate penalty for a subsequent capital offense.... [S]ection 190.3 prohibits evidence of other `violent criminal activity' by the defendant only if he was `prosecuted and acquitted.' A bargained conviction or dismissal is not an `acquittal' as described in section 190.3. (Italics in original, fn. omitted.) Melton likewise rejected the claim that double jeopardy principles are implicated when the details of misconduct which has already resulted in conviction and punishment, or in dismissal pursuant to a plea bargain or for witness unavailability, are presented in a later proceeding on the separate issue of the appropriate penalty for a subsequent offense. [Citation.] (44 Cal.3d at p. 756, fn. 17, italics added.) We conclude that the challenged evidence was admissible despite the bargained for dismissals.