Opinion ID: 1470596
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The August 2005 Protection From Abuse Affidavit

Text: [¶ 31] During the trial, the jury heard testimony that Mendoza had filed a number of protection from abuse complaints against Roberts during their relationship, including a video recording of Roberts's testimony from a child protective hearing regarding these complaints. Roberts offered, and the court admitted, a protection from abuse complaint and related paperwork filed by Mendoza in June 2005 against Roberts. [5] Included in this exhibit was Mendoza's affidavit in support of the complaint alleging that Roberts had hit me, kicked me, punched me, strangled me and put a gun to my head. The State then offered, and the court admitted without objection, Mendoza's complaint for protection from abuse and supporting affidavit filed in August 2005. The affidavit contained allegations that Roberts had put a gun to [Mendoza's] head numerous times and that she was afraid he or one of his friends would hurt her. [¶ 32] The complaints and affidavits were admitted after a conference with the court in which Roberts argued that because the protection from abuse complaints had been referred to in testimony, the June 2005 complaint and related proceedings should be admitted as an exhibit. The State argued that, in the interest of completeness, the August 2005 complaint should also be admitted. Roberts agreed to the admission of the August complaint and related paperwork, and the court subsequently admitted both complaints and related paperwork. [6] [¶ 33] With respect to the protection from abuse complaints and affidavits, the court instructed the jury: [T]he allegations [in the complaints and affidavits] are not evidence of anything. It is simply  again, those are simply to indicate that she did file a complaint for protection from abuse, and you put on whatever weight you choose as . . . the finders of fact to place on that. But you cannot consider the allegations that appear in the 2005 complaint as evidence of anything. They're simply allegations. They've never been proven and they have no . . . evidentiary concern. They're not to be considered by you when you assess the evidence. Although he did not object at trial, Roberts now contends that the court committed obvious error in admitting Mendoza's August 2005 protection from abuse affidavit because it violated his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights and contained allegations so prejudicial as to constitute manifest injustice. [¶ 34] Contrary to Roberts's contention, admission of the August protection from abuse affidavit did not implicate Roberts's Confrontation Clause rights because Mendoza's statements contained therein were not offered for their truth. In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59 n. 9, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), the U.S. Supreme Court explained that [t]he [Confrontation] Clause . . . does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted. The trial court's instruction to the jury establishes that the affidavit was not admitted for the truth of the matters asserted in it. [¶ 35] Nor can we conclude that admission of the protection from abuse affidavit was so prejudicial as to constitute error, much less obvious error, under the facts of this case. Roberts himself introduced, as an exhibit, the protection from abuse affidavit filed in June 2005 that contained allegations similar to those contained in the August affidavit, along with subsequent documents filed by Mendoza indicating that she no longer wished to proceed with the complaint. The State therefore sought admission of the August complaint and affidavit to give the jury a complete picture of the history of the protection from abuse proceedings between Mendoza and Roberts throughout their relationship. Because the jury was instructed that it was not to consider the allegations for their truth, and because the affidavit was offered for reasons other than showing Roberts's alleged bad character, we find no obvious error in the admission of the August 2005 protection from abuse affidavit.