When a defendant is charged with a charge of assault with intent to pervert the course of justice, is the evidence of domestic violence prior to the charged offence prejudicial?

Here, the prior acts of domestic violence occurred within the weeks before the killing. While the potential prejudice of the prior acts was increased by the fact that they did not result in a criminal conviction, there was no risk the jury would confuse the threats, arguments and evidence of bruising with the killing. Moreover, the evidence related to the prior acts was relatively brief and no stronger or more inflammatory than the testimony concerning the charged offense. (See People v. Tran (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1040, 1047.) In fact, the evidence regarding the killing, with the victim's head being "blown half off," was significantly more inflammatory than the evidence of the conduct leading up to the killing. The probative value of the evidence was increased by the fact that the domestic violence was between defendant and the same victim (see People v. Zack (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 409, 415), and the probative value substantially outweighed the prejudicial effect. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence.

We granted defendant's request to submit supplemental briefing on whether this

Page 8