Opinion ID: 1351145
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Testimony of defendant's assault on Charlene

Text: Charlene's mother testified that defendant married Charlene in 1978, and again in 1980, and that after the second marriage defendant assaulted Charlene at their Sacramento apartment. Defendant unsuccessfully objected to this evidence on grounds it was irrelevant, and more prejudicial than probative under Evidence Code section 352. Defendant renews those claims, and further asserts the testimony should have been excluded as improper character evidence. a. Character evidence. (22) Because defendant did not object on the ground of improper character evidence, the issue may not be raised now. ( People v. Privitera (1979) 23 Cal.3d 697, 710 [153 Cal. Rptr. 431, 591 P.2d 919, 5 A.L.R.4th 178].) In any event the record discloses the testimony was introduced not to establish defendant's bad character, but to help explain the relationship between defendant and Charlene. b. Evidence Code section 352. (23) Again, the evidence was probative to explain defendant's relationship with Charlene, and why she would agree to help lure and kill his victims. It also explained and corroborated Charlene's statements that she feared defendant. In light of the other properly admitted evidence in this case, the trial court did not err in concluding this testimony was not unduly prejudicial. c. Relevance. (24) Defendant suggests the trial court had a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury that the testimony was to be used for a limited purpose, and should have cautioned the jury against misusing the testimony. He complains failure to do so allowed the jury to consider a single prior act as evidence of defendant's violent character. Defendant offers no authority for the proposition that a sua sponte duty existed in this situation, and we decline to create one. In any event, on this record we cannot believe this single prior act was a crucial factor in the jurors' minds as they deliberated defendant's guilt.