Opinion ID: 2599880
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Uncharged Criminal Acts (Lewis, Oliver)

Text: Defendants argue here, as below, that evidence of uncharged conduct was improperly admitted to show their violent character or disposition. (Evid.Code, § 1101, subd. (a).) This evidence was not relevant, defendants claim, for any valid nondispositional purpose. ( Id., subd. (b).) Oliver also alleges violations of his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment and to a reliable penalty determination under the Eighth Amendment. He also invokes generally the Sixth Amendment and the state Constitution. Lewis claims a violation of his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment and his right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Except for due process, the constitutional claims are forfeited. ( Partida, supra, 37 Cal.4th 428, 435, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 644, 122 P.3d 765.) No error occurred under state law. On April 9, 1992, the prosecution moved, in writing, to admit five uncharged incidents in which Lewis abused Mizell and threatened to kill her and her family. Such evidence showed that Lewis (1) threatened to kill Mizell with a knife and nicked her with it in September 1988, (2) threatened to kill her and choked her in February 1989, (3) threatened to kill her and held a knife to her throat in an alley in March 1989, (4) assaulted and threatened to kill her in June 1989, and (5) threatened to kill her on July 18, 1989, after she moved out. Other uncharged acts the prosecution moved to introduce included the arsons of Iva Worthen's Ford Tempo and Mizell's Datsun 200SX on July 19 and 21, 1989; the confrontation involving Mizell, Oliver, and the police on July 19, 1989; the shooting of Betty Bates's Buick Skylark on July 20, 1989; and Oliver's act of threatening Louise Holt with his Savage shotgun on July 23, 1989. Defendants opposed this evidence at pretrial hearings on April 14 and 20, 1992. The trial court agreed with the prosecution that the evidence permitted reasonable inferences about defendants' motive, identity, and opportunity to commit the charged crimes. The court stressed the close timing and similar nature of the acts, the relationship between the victims and defendants, defendants' familiarity with the victims' property, and defendants' access to the murder weapon. The court found no substantial risk of prejudice under Evidence Code section 352. The court later instructed the jury that Lewis's threats against Mizell could not be used against Oliver. The court also instructed jurors on the limited purpose for which other-crimes evidence can be used. The court's ruling is consistent with the law. ( People v. Gray (2005) 37 Cal.4th 168, 202, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 451, 118 P.3d 496; People v. Catlin (2001) 26 Cal.4th 81, 145-146, 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 31, 26 P.3d 357.) It is entitled to deference on appeal. ( People v. Jablonski (2006) 37 Cal.4th 774, 821, 824, 38 Cal.Rptr.3d 98, 126 P.3d 938.) No abuse of discretion occurred. The uncharged acts showed an escalating campaign to retaliate against Mizell and her family for the marital breakup. This motive also suggested that defendants were the perpetrators, and that they intended and premeditated the victims' deaths. The incident with Louise Holt, which occurred a few days later, showed defendants had the means to commit the murders.