People v. Harper CA2/6

DISCUSSION

A. Prior Acts of Domestic Violence Harper contends the trial court erred when it admitted testimony about him hitting and choking J.P. on prior occasions. Such evidence is not ordinarily admissible to show a defendant’s disposition to commit the charged acts. (Evid. Code, § 1101.) Evidence Code section 1109 creates an exception to this rule in domestic violence cases. (See People v. Brown (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1222, 1232-1233.) Trial courts must still determine whether such evidence runs afoul of section 352, i.e., whether the probative value of such evidence “is substantially outweighed by the probability the evidence will consume an undue amount of

3 time or create a substantial danger of undue prejudice, confusing of issues, or misleading the jury.” (Id. at p. 1233.) We review the ruling below for abuse of discretion, affirming “except upon a showing that it was exercised in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.” (Ibid., citing People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1124-1125.) The trial court did not abuse its discretion; it reasonably found Harper’s past abuse was probative of his propensity to…