In what circumstances will a jury be unable to convict a defendant of a charge of robbery?

The jury was not made privy to any of the evidence with respect to the robbery. Unlike other crimes like murder or child molestation, we cannot conclude that the charge of robbery would inflame a jury's passions and cause it to base a verdict on matters outside the evidence. More importantly, appellant ignores the fact that while the victim was testifying, the court told the jury, "Folks, what the charge is on the other case is wholly irrelevant at this time so you are to disregard that." "[W]e are required to presume that the jury understands and follows the instructions it is given." (People v. Cline (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1327, 1336.)

As appellant correctly concedes, the erroneous admission of evidence requires reversal only if it is reasonably probable that he would have received a more favorable outcome but for the error. (People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 439.) Notwithstanding appellant's contrary characterization, the case against him was strong. The victim had prior contact with him, thus rendering identification quite certain. In addition, appellant's conduct, which included following her in a vehicle to a location away from the courthouse, blocking her path with his vehicle, and glaring at her in an intimidating manner that "scared the hell" out of her, demonstrated a clear intent to keep her from testifying at the robbery trial. Any error was harmless.

Page 14