People v. Arellano CA3

Filed 4/26/22 P. v. Arellano CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C090025

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 18FE007408)

v.

JOSE ISREAL ARELLANO,

Defendant and Appellant.

After a jury found defendant Jose Israel Arellano guilty of willful infliction of corporal injury for pushing his ex-girlfriend, A.A., down a stairwell in their house, a potential witness claimed A.A. had fabricated her testimony and attempted to suborn him. Defendant moved for a new trial based on this newly discovered evidence and contends the trial court, in denying the motion, erred by finding the evidence merely cumulative and not credible. Agreeing the evidence is not credible, we affirm.

1

BACKGROUND Due to the limited nature of the claim on appeal, we need not fully recite the facts of the underlying trial. It suffices to say A.A. testified that, after their relationship deteriorated and defendant became abusive, they decided to sell the house they co-owned. As she was moving out, defendant pushed her down a flight of stairs, causing minor injuries. Her testimony was corroborated by her friend and business partner, Lupe, who witnessed the offense firsthand and called 911. Theorizing A.A. fabricated the offense in retaliation for litigation between her and defendant and because she wanted to keep the house, defendant sought to impeach both witnesses based on their putatively inconsistent statements, relationship, communication about the case, and involvement in the litigation. Defendant also sought to establish an alibi: by the time Lupe called 911, he had strolled into a nearby Walmart. The prosecution argued he could have pushed A.A. down, fled to Walmart, and then returned in the established timeframe, and additionally presented evidence showing defendant had a propensity for abusive and harassing behavior. Three days after the jury entered the verdict finding defendant guilty of willful infliction of corporal injury, a man named Raphael called the district attorney’s crime lab and began leveling dark but shifting allegations against A.A. According to a criminalist who spoke with him, Raphael claimed everything A.A. alleged against defendant was untrue, she had similarly made false allegations in a prior relationship, and she promised Raphael carnal rewards if he killed defendant. Raphael was leery about providing his contact information, indicating he was concerned A.A. would find out. Four days later, an investigator from the district attorney’s office, Dale Joe, followed up with Raphael to get more background. Raphael reported he did not know defendant; he met A.A. earlier that year in a store where she began flirting with him. A.A. allegedly told him she would “ ‘do just about anything to keep the house’ ” and Raphael could “ ‘be with her’ ” if he helped her. But his account of A.A.’s proposition changed: Instead of wanting defendant killed, Raphael now claimed A.A. told him she