California Court of Appeal Dec 11, 2024 No. E082522Unpublished
Filed 12/11/24 P. v. Houston CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E082522
v. (Super.Ct.No. FVI22002267)
ROBERT HOUSTON, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. John P. Vander
Feer, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Offices of Zulu Ali & Associates and Zulu Ali for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and Christine
Y. Friedman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Robert Houston and his wife, Jane Doe, had a tumultuous
relationship involving numerous domestic violence incidents dating back to 2017. In the
1
most recent incident, defendant got angry with Doe after seeing a text message from a
man on her phone. Defendant choked her, hit her in the head and hit her leg with a metal
baseball bat. Evidence of three prior incidents of domestic violence between Doe and
“An exercise of discretion under Evidence Code section 352 will be affirmed
unless it was arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd and the ruling resulted in a
miscarriage of justice.” (People v. Winbush (2017) 2 Cal.5th 402, 469; see also People v.
Holford, supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 168.)
Here, prior to trial, the trial court spent a considerable amount of time considering
the admission of the Evidence Code section 1109 evidence. It first addressed the 2017
and 2020 priors, both of which resulted in convictions. Both convictions involved the
same victim. The 2017 prior involved the same type of conduct of choking Doe. The
2020 prior involved defendant hitting Doe’s car with a chair; she sustained no injuries.
Doe briefly testified regarding these incidents, and the jury was advised that defendant
had been convicted of the prior acts so there was no risk that the jury would seek to
punish defendant for the previous acts in this case.
As for the uncharged incident, in 2020 defendant grabbed Doe’s throat and choked
her. As a result, she had a scratch on her neck. This incident did not result in a
conviction, but this did not render it inadmissible under Evidence Code section 352. The
incident was extremely similar to the current incident in that defendant choked Doe in
both incidents. “ ‘The principal factor affecting the probative value of an uncharged act
12
is its similarity to the charged offense.’ ” (People v. Hollie (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1262,
1274.) “[I]n domestic violence cases . . . similar prior offenses are ‘uniquely probative’
of guilt in a later accusation.” (People v. Johnson (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 520, 532.)
Further, the admission of the 2020 prior did not involve an undue consumption of time at
trial and did not mislead the jury.2
Additionally, the prior convictions and uncharged incident were not more
inflammatory than the current incident. Although in 2017, defendant threatened to kill
Doe, she only had a swollen neck after the incident. In 2019, Doe suffered no injuries
and in 2020 she had a scratch on her neck. Here, Doe was choked so hard she could not
breathe and was gasping for air. She had a bruise and permanent injury to her leg from
defendant hitting her with the metal bat. Doe believed that defendant was trying to kill
her. The trial court understood the potential prejudice of the admission of the two prior
convictions and the 2020 uncharged incident but exercised its discretion to admit the
evidence based on its probative value to the instant case. Such admission was not an
abuse of the trial court’s discretion.
Defendant states in his opening brief that the trial court’s “failure to bifurcate the
trial further compounded this error.” Defendant provides no legal authority or further
clarifying argument for his claim. “Where a point is merely asserted by counsel without
2 We need not consider the admission of the incident occurring in August 2022 as defendant elicited such testimony during cross-examination despite the trial court agreeing to exclude it prior to trial.
13
any argument of or authority for its proposition, it is deemed to be without foundation
and requires no discussion.” (People v. Dougherty (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 278, 282.)
Finally, even if we considered that the trial court erred by admitting the prior acts
of domestic violence, it is not reasonably probable the jury would have reached a more
favorable result without the evidence. (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836.)
Initially, the trial court gave the jury instructions on how to view the evidence of the prior
uncharged act of domestic violence and the prior convictions of domestic violence. The
jury was informed it could not convict defendant based solely on the prior domestic
violence. It was advised that the prior convictions and incidents were only one factor to
consider along with all the other evidence. Each charge in the current case had to be
proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We presume the jury followed the instructions and
found defendant guilty based on the evidence presented as to the current incident.
(People v. Wilson (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1006, 1014 [“ ‘We “presume” [jurors] generally
understand and follow the instructions’ “].)
Further, the evidence of the current incident strongly supported the jury’s verdict.
Doe immediately called the police once she was able to locate her phone. She was
gasping for air and crying when Officer Santos arrived at their house. She was unable to
talk to Officer Santos until she was given oxygen. Doe advised Officer Santos that she
believed defendant was trying to kill her. Doe had visible injuries on her neck and a
bruise on her leg where defendant hit her with the baseball bat. Defendant had no visible
injuries despite his defense being he only acted in self-defense. It is not reasonably
14
probable that defendant would have obtained a more favorable result absent the evidence
of the prior domestic violence convictions and incident.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed in full.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
RAPHAEL J.
15
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The trial court did not abuse its discretion under Evidence Code section 352 by admitting evidence of the defendant's prior domestic violence convictions and uncharged acts under Evidence Code section 1109.
Issues
Did the trial court abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of prior domestic violence incidents under Evidence Code section 1109?
Was the probative value of the prior domestic violence evidence substantially outweighed by the risk of undue prejudice under Evidence Code section 352?
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The trial court understood the potential prejudice of the admission of the two prior convictions and the 2020 uncharged incident but exercised its discretion to admit the evidence based on its probative value to the instant case.”
“Such admission was not an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.”