People v. Burgess CA4/1

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 10, 2022D078156ACalifornia16,323 words

Opinion

Opinion

Do, J.

INTRODUCTION

Over the Fourth of July holiday in 2019, Kevin Burgess strangled his

estranged wife Jane Doe1 to unconsciousness two times, fashioned a noose and put it around her neck, prevented her from leaving the house, and told Jane’s young children he would kill her if they tried to leave the house to get help. He was convicted by a jury of assault, corporal injury to a spouse, false imprisonment by violence or menace, making a criminal threat, and misdemeanor willful cruelty to a child. At trial, the prosecution was permitted to present evidence of three uncharged acts of prior domestic violence, in which Burgess had physically isolated Jane, strangled her, and threatened to kill her. Burgess appeals, claiming the trial court committed evidentiary error when it admitted evidence of his prior acts of domestic violence pursuant to

Evidence Code section 1109, subdivision (a)(1).2 He also contends the court committed instructional error because it failed to inform the jury that it could not consider the prior acts of domestic violence when deciding his guilt of the charged crimes of false imprisonment or willful cruelty to a child. He further contends there was insufficient…

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.