People v. Talkington CA4/1

Discussion part I, where they are to the Evidence Code. 2 not testify at trial, and by improperly shifting the burden of proof to the defense. Finally, Talkington contends the court erred at sentencing by failing to consider his potential military service-related traumatic brain injury (TBI) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in deciding whether to grant probation and whether to impose a lower term sentence. (§§ 1170.9, 1170.91; see People v. Panozo (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 825, 831 (Panozo).) As we will explain, we find no prejudicial evidentiary error and no prosecutorial error. However, because the record is ambiguous as to whether the trial court considered Talkington’s potential TBI or PTSD in making its discretionary sentencing choices, we will remand for resentencing. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Prosecution Case Stacy and Talkington met eight or nine months before the incident, when Stacy was staying at Father Joe’s Village for a few nights and saw Talkington there. Stacy characterized their relationship as “acquaintance[s].” About four months before the incident, Stacy moved into a 216-square- foot unit in an SRO…