People v. Scott-Gibson CA3

Filed 10/29/20 P. v. Scott-Gibson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE, C090170

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 18F8448)

v.

JEREMIAH OBEDIAH SCOTT-GIBSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Jeremiah Obediah Scott-Gibson appeals his conviction for corporal injury to a spouse. At trial, the trial court ruled that text messages showing defendant was attempting to dissuade a witness from testifying would be admissible to impeach defendant; however, defendant did not testify. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court infringed on various of his constitutional rights by permitting this evidence. We affirm on the basis defendant’s appeal is procedurally barred because he chose not to testify.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND At trial, defendant’s wife, S.O., testified that while they were separated, defendant asked her to come to his apartment one night. Defendant appeared intoxicated and told S.O. he had cheated on her with her friend. S.O. poured a beer on defendant’s head and after initially sitting there, defendant lunged at her, started choking her, they fell to the floor, and he slammed her head on the ground. Defendant then grabbed her by the hair and shoved her out of the apartment. Defendant’s ex-wife, R.C., testified to a prior event of physical violence when she was married to defendant where defendant scratched her wrist while pulling her out of bed and then tried to break her phone. During a break in S.O.’s testimony, the court and parties discussed admission of text messages between Conry and defendant made two weeks before trial. The text messages showed Conry told defendant she had been asked to testify. The conversation continued: “[Defendant:] What are you gonna say? [¶] Will you talk to my lawyer first before you decide? “[Conry:] The truth. I don’t know what they’ll ask. I’m sure they’ll ask about what happened with us a few years ago. “[¶] . . . [¶] “[Defendant:] It’s your call [Conry], but only testify if you want me to go to prison for a crime I didnt [sic] commit.” Conry told the prosecutor she understood the texts to mean defendant was asking her to not testify. The prosecutor told the court he intended to introduce the text messages only if defendant testified because it was late discovery and he did not want to spring this on the defense. Defendant’s counsel argued the messages were not relevant because defendant was not accused of a crime against Conry and they would be highly prejudicial. Counsel