People v. Berrum CA2/6

Filed 4/22/15 P. v. Berrum CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B253070 (Super. Ct. No. BA392467-01) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

MIGUEL A. BERRUM,

Defendant and Appellant.

Miguel Berrum appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of the first degree murder of Leobardo Esparza. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189.) Appellant was sentenced to prison for 25 years to life. Appellant contends that the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of acts of domestic violence that he had committed against his wife. At a pretrial Evidence Code section 402 hearing,1 the court ruled that the domestic violence evidence was admissible to support wife's credibility as a witness. But the court instructed the jury that the evidence was admitted for the limited purpose of showing wife's state of mind toward appellant. We conclude that the court erred in admitting the domestic violence evidence. The error, however, was harmless. Accordingly, we affirm.

1 All further statutory references are to the Evidence Code.

1

Facts Appellant was living in a shed that had formerly been used as a garage. At about 5:00 p.m. on December 31, 2011, appellant and the victim, Leobardo Esparza, entered the shed. Esparza had driven there in his 1992 Caprice. At about 6:00 or 6:30 p.m. on December 31, 2011, appellant arrived at a New Year's Eve Party driving Esparza's Caprice . Esparza was not with him. Appellant told people at the party that he had received the Caprice in payment for work that he had performed. Appellant installed carpets. Esparza's wife testified that appellant had never performed work for her or her husband. On January 2 or 3, 2012, appellant offered to sell the Caprice to Miguel Arroyo. Arroyo did not purchase the vehicle. On January 1, 2012, appellant gave a cell phone to Fernando Zavala. Appellant said that it was a gift. Esparza's wife testified that the cell phone belonged to her husband. On January 2, 2012, Esparza's body was discovered inside appellant's shed. Esparza's wallet was underneath his body. The wallet did not contain any cash. In the morning on December 31, 2011, Esparza cashed his paycheck and received $446.43. Later that day in appellant's presence, Esparza opened his wallet and gave a $20 bill to a neighbor, Esteban Hernandez. Hernandez noticed that "[t]here were a lot" of bills in Esparza's wallet. Near Esparza's body, the police found two coffee cans filled with cement. A metal pole had been inserted into the cement of each can. Blood on the cans matched Esparza's DNA profile. Under the driver's seat of Esparza's Caprice, the police found "a leather-like pouch with a utililty-like knife inside." The knife was "a double-sided blade that stays out; hence the leather pouch for it to protect the blade." The knife was used to cut carpets. "[R]eddish-brown specks inside the knife" matched Esparza's DNA profile. A mixture of DNA from two persons was found on the handle of the knife. Appellant was the major contributor of the DNA. Esparza could "not be excluded as a possible minor contributor" of the DNA on the knife handle.