The Peopple of the state of California v. Angela Heers

San Diego, California criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.



M.W. owns and lives on a multiacre property in Oceanside, some of which he rents out to F.R. to run a plant nursery. Heers works for M.W. on the property and lives in a room in M.W.'s house. Heers and F.R. were not on good terms with each other. In July 2023, Heers unsuccessfully petitioned for a restraining order against F.R., in which she sought, among other things, an order requiring F.R. to stay away from the property and from M.W.



On the morning of August 23, 2023, F.R. walked up to M.W.'s house to check on M.W., who was sick. Heers was in front of the house painting a gate. When Heers saw F.R. approaching, she confronted him near the front door and told him to leave. Heers and F.R. then got into a physical altercation, which resulted in F.R. incurring a cut on his left torso and an injury to his hands. During their trial testimony, Heers and F.R. gave different descriptions of the incident.



3



According to F.R., after Heers told him to leave, Heers started the physical altercation by swinging a long heavy metal tool at F.R.'s torso while he was near the front door.[2] The tool struck him and inflicted a cut. F.R. explained that when Heers tried to hit him with the tool a second time, he grabbed the tool and struggled with Heers while she kicked him multiple times. Heers also hit him in the face several times during the incident. F.R. eventually released his grip on the tool, ran away, and called 911.



Heers testified that F.R. was the aggressor. Heers explained that she was trying to block the front door with her body, but F.R. pushed her. Heers tried to protect herself by slapping F.R.'s face, and she kicked him one time. She also tried to bar the door with the metal tool, resulting in a tug-of-war between her and F.R. over the tool.



* * *



Legal issue Can evidence of prior restraining order petitions and past convictions be admitted in a trial to demonstrate motive and impeach the credibility of a defendant accused of assault with a deadly weapon?

Headnote



CRIMINAL LAW. ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON. The defendant appealed the conviction for assault with a deadly weapon, challenging the admissibility of evidence regarding prior allegations against the victim and a past misdemeanor conviction for a crime of moral turpitude. The court determined the evidence was admissible to show motive and impeach the defendant's credibility.



EVIDENCE. ADMISSIBILITY AND PREJUDICE. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision to admit evidence of the defendant's prior restraining order allegations against the victim and a previous conviction for moral turpitude, finding these relevant to the defendant's motive and impeachment of credibility, thus not unduly prejudicial under Evidence Code section 352.



CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. EVIDENCE OBJECTIONS. The court addressed procedural forfeitures, noting that the defendant's failure to timely object to specific evidence at trial precluded appellate review of those objections, reinforcing the necessity of contemporaneous objection for preservation of evidentiary challenges.



Key Phrases Assault with a deadly weapon. Formal probation for two years. Restraining order allegations. Crime of moral turpitude. Evidentiary exclusion discretion.

Defendant was found guilty.



Affirmed