People v. Clark CA1/1

Filed 10/6/15 P. v. Clark CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A139279 v. MICHAEL FRANCIS CLARK, JR., (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 51304690) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Michael Francis Clark, Jr., appeals from his battery, assault, and false imprisonment convictions. He asserts the trial court should have admitted evidence his victim, a woman he had been intimate with, had once been arrested for domestic violence towards him. He also asserts the trial court improperly limited closing argument regarding the knife found in his camper and failed to properly instruct the jury on circumstantial evidence. We affirm. BACKGROUND We summarize only the facts relevant to the issues on appeal. Tina Sistrunk, the victim, provided the main evidence against defendant at trial. Sistrunk, in California, met defendant, then in Minnesota, online. They chatted and formed a friendship. On learning defendant had never been to California, Sistrunk told him he was welcome to visit and crash, for a week, on the couch in the apartment she was about to get. Defendant immediately accepted the offer and drove out with his truck and camper. Within a week of defendant’s arrival, the two became physically intimate but, according to Sistrunk, they were not in a romantic dating relationship. Sistrunk and defendant were, at first, living out of the camper, and then were living together in Sistrunk’s new apartment in Concord. Defendant stayed in the apartment for about a month with Sistrunk, and then a second month while she was not there. Although the two

1

continued to have sex during these two months, their relationship faltered in part due to defendant’s belief there was a real dating relationship and defendant’s “weird and paranoid” behavior. After that, Sistrunk “got him to leave.” Some days later, on February 2, 2013, defendant and Sistrunk met up again. That day, defendant returned to Sistrunk’s apartment and asked to shower. Sistrunk let him in and then went off with a friend, expecting to find him gone upon her return. But when she came back, defendant was still there and was cooking in Sistrunk’s kitchen. Defendant wanted to know why he and Sistrunk could not have a romantic relationship. Sistrunk explained she still did not want one, and this angered defendant. Defendant then pushed against Sistrunk, grabbed her neck and pinched her Adam’s apple, and held her against the back of her sofa. Sistrunk “freaked out” and told him to leave because she was calling the police. Defendant left. Later that day, Sistrunk went out to the liquor store across the street from her apartment. She saw defendant. Defendant approached and again asked why they could not be together. Defendant invited her back to his camper to share beers. Sistrunk made it clear she was not interested, and would not be interested, in a relationship, but went with defendant. At the camper, defendant again spoke about his interest in a relationship and Sistrunk, growing weary of the topic, again rebuffed him. After 10 to 15 minutes, Sistrunk got up to leave. Defendant “grabbed [her] left shoulder and in his right hand put a knife to [her] throat.” Defendant pulled her back up against his chest. She could feel the “jagged edge to [her] throat”—the pressure from a serrated knife. The attack surprised her. Sistrunk did not “see where he pulled [the] knife from,” nor did she have a chance to look down and see the knife as it was pressed against her throat. Sistrunk resisted, and at first defendant only applied more pressure to keep her in place. At last, Sistrunk got a thumb between the knife and her throat and was also able to bite down on one of defendant’s fingers. Photographic evidence confirmed cuts to Sistrunk’s left thumb and scratches to her neck. A police officer also testified to seeing these injuries shortly after the incident. The bite caused defendant to stop, and Sistrunk ran out of the camper after pausing to grab her things. Defendant also left the camper. Both Sistrunk and defendant then encountered a police officer, Officer Riche, the only other witness to testify at trial. He happened to be on traffic patrol 200 yards from where the