People v. Clark CA3

Filed 11/5/24 P. v. Clark CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ----

THE PEOPLE, C099592

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 62-191843)

v.

BRANDON ALLAN CLARK,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Brandon Allan Clark guilty of inflicting corporal injury on a current or former dating partner and two drug offenses. Defendant appeals, arguing the corporal injury conviction lacked sufficient evidence to support a finding he was in a dating relationship with the victim. He also argues the prosecution committed prosecutorial error during closing argument by framing his relationship with the victim as “ ‘on and off’ ” despite defense counsel’s failure to make a timely objection. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In May 2023, defendant and Taylor R. spent the night together at a hotel. They had sex, watched television, ate snacks, and drank alcohol. The next morning, defendant

1

ate psilocybin mushrooms and acted violently towards Taylor. Taylor attempted but failed to call defendant’s mother for help. Defendant attempted to take Taylor’s phone and a scuffle ensued. Defendant then grabbed Taylor’s purse from her shoulder, ran down the hallway outside of the hotel room, and stiff-armed her face when she chased him. Taylor eventually escaped by car to a nearby gas station, speaking with a 911 dispatcher on the way. During her conversation with the dispatcher, Taylor referred to defendant as her “boyfriend.” At the gas station, Roseville Police Officer Rosa Valdez arrived and noticed redness on Taylor’s chest, scratches on her arms and wrists, and dried blood on her earlobe. Taylor told Officer Valdez that she and defendant had a “weird relationship,” and that defendant was not her “boyfriend” but they had an “intimate relationship.” At trial, Officer Valdez testified that defendant and Taylor met on a “dating app” and were together “on and off.” On cross-examination, Officer Valdez acknowledged that she did not ask Taylor to elaborate on what she meant by a “weird relationship.” Taylor testified that while in college, she and defendant met on a social connection platform and continued to stay in touch and meet occasionally over the following 10 years. During these meetings, defendant and Taylor would usually, but not always, have sex. Taylor testified that over 10 years, she and defendant had sex “maybe ten times.” In addition to having sex, Taylor and defendant would meet at defendant’s apartment or hotels and catch up on life. They would also speak on the phone and exchange text messages between in-person meetings. Taylor insisted that she and defendant were not dating but were only friends. Taylor explained that she did not see defendant at all in 2021, saw him once in 2022, and saw him twice in 2023. Taylor also explained that she “enjoyed [defendant’s] company” but wanted to keep their relationship “separate from [her] life.” She only met defendant’s mother once, never met any of his other family or friends, and had