Hendrix

People v. Hendrix

Caution
153 Cal. Rptr. 3d 740·2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 171·214 Cal. App. 4th 216·2013 WL 831199
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 7, 2013No. C064377California16,265 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Murray, J.

Defendant Richard Eugene Hendrix was convicted of resisting an executive officer by use of force or violence in the performance of his duty in violation of Penal Code section 69. In a separate bench trial, the court found true an alleged prior strike. Defendant was sentenced to six years in state prison.

Defendant’s first trial ended in a mistrial when the jury declared it was unable to reach a verdict. Prior to the second trial, the prosecution moved in limine to admit five incidents involving prior encounters defendant had with the police. Over defendant’s objection, the trial court in the second trial ruled that evidence concerning two of the prior incidents, in which defendant unlawfully resisted the police, would be admissible. These two prior incidents were admitted into evidence at the second trial through live testimony of some of the police officers who were involved. The second jury returned a guilty verdict.

*221 Defendant contends the trial court committed reversible error in admitting evidence of the two prior incidents of defendant’s misconduct. While evidence of uncharged offenses is admissible under the appropriate circumstances, our high court has…

Dissenting Opinion

Nicholson, J.

I respectfully disagree that the prior crimes evidence was improperly admitted and that such admission was prejudicial.

When we review a trial court’s ruling concerning admission of evidence, we consider only the evidence before the court when it made its ruling. (People v. Hartsch (2010) 49 Cal.4th 472, 491 [ 110 Cal.Rptr.3d 673 , 232 P.3d 663 ].) Here, the trial court ruled on the pretrial motion relying on the prosecution’s offer of proof. Since those were the facts before the trial court when it made its ruling, any other facts developed at trial were and are immaterial to the trial court’s ruling.

As noted by the majority, the offer of proof concerning the two prior crimes was as follows:

These past circumstances gave defendant experience, closeup and personal, with police officers. He was able to observe them, and he learned that they would use physical force on his body to detain him. In one instance, there was also a security guard present before the police officers arrived, and defendant learned that, when situations escalate with a security guard present, police officers tend to arrive and take control. Defendant’s experience surpassed that of most people who have no…

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.