Blanco

People v. Blanco

Good Law
10 Cal. App. 4th 1167·13 Cal. Rptr. 2d 176·1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 1293·92 Daily Journal DAR 14955·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9058
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 4, 1992A054352California3,217 words

Opinion

Opinion

Peterson, J.

Appellant contends that the 1991 amendment to Evidence Code section 1103, subdivision (b)—which allows the introduction of evidence of a defendant’s violent acts and reputation for violence, if a defendant presents evidence as to the bad acts or reputation of the victim of a crime—violates the due process rights of a criminal defendant and is, therefore, unconstitutional. We reject this contention, find no reversible error, and affirm the judgment of conviction.

I. Facts and Procedural History

It is uncontested that appellant shot the murder victim in the back, shortly after they had had a violent street dispute over drugs or money. The major issue contested at trial was appellant’s claim that he fired in self-defense. We summarize the evidence briefly to provide necessary factual background.

The prosecution evidence showed that a prostitute purchased some cocaine from appellant; when she learned that what she had been given by appellant was not in fact cocaine, she tried to get her money back from appellant and enlisted the help of the victim, her protector or enforcer. The prostitute and the victim became involved in an argument with appellant which escalated to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.