Opinion ID: 1057944
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Testimony of Lisa Barajas

Text: Lisa Barajas testified to events that took place in California in 1990 in which she, her mother Emily Devila, and Yvette Woodruff were kidnapped and raped by Prieto and two other 22 men, and Yvette was murdered. Prieto was convicted of (1) one count of first degree murder with a robbery-murder, a kidnapping-murder, and a rape-murder special circumstance; (2) two counts of attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder; (3) two counts of attempted robbery; (4) two counts of robbery; (5) three counts of kidnapping for robbery; (6) three counts of forcible rape; and (7) one count of possession of a firearm by a felon. People v. Prieto, 66 P.3d 1123, 1130-31 (Cal.) (internal citations omitted), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1008 (2003). The use of prior criminal convictions and prior unadjudicated criminal conduct as evidence of [the] 'future dangerousness' [predicate of a capital offense] has been consistently approved by this Court. Watkins v. Commonwealth, 238 Va. 341, 352, 385 S.E.2d 50, 56 (1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1074 (1990). The scope of testimony regarding prior acts, as probative of future dangerousness, is limited to the actual events and does not extend to the impact of the events on the victims. Prieto has two primary objections. The first is that Barajas' testimony addressed the actions of Prieto's codefendant rather than Prieto himself and is therefore irrelevant and prejudicial. The second is that portions of the testimony constitute victim impact statements, which are not admissible 23 for crimes other than the one for which the defendant is being sentenced. The first issue arises in part because California law does not distinguish convictions between principal actors and agents in the second degree or aiders and abettors. See Prieto, 66 P.3d at 1140 ([D]efendant could be found guilty if the charged crime was the natural and probable consequence of another crime that he intentionally aided and abetted.). The record indicates that each man was the primary rapist of a different woman, and Barajas made clear throughout her testimony that Prieto was not her physical rapist. Prieto seeks, therefore, to exclude her testimony as irrelevant to his future dangerousness. Barajas' testimony, however, was highly relevant to Prieto. Barajas indicated that the three men worked together in a coordinated effort to commit the offenses. Although she mentioned her own rape and that she was bitten during it, a review of her testimony reveals that it was narrowly tailored to describing the general events and Prieto's involvement in the crimes. In fact, the most inflammatory remarks, during which she described lying in the dirt pretending to be dead waiting to be stabbed, are in fact those most directly related to Prieto: she recounted him having a conversation with her rapist and asking her primary attacker whether he had killed her yet. Her testimony was thus highly probative as to the future 24 dangerousness aggravating factor, and it cannot be said that the circuit court abused its discretion in allowing the testimony. Prieto also argues that Barajas' testimony strayed into impermissible victim impact territory when describing seeing Yvette, like sitting, slumped up against the tree. A review of the testimony shows that this argument is baseless. Barajas did not elaborate on the impact of the trauma on her life; she merely described the events as they occurred and explained her location in relation to Yvette. The circuit court was well within its discretion in admitting this testimony as relevant to the future dangerousness aggravating factor.