Opinion
B322600
01-12-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VICTOR DOMINGUEZ-GOMEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
Paul Couenhoven, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Catherine Chatman and Erin Doering, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County No. F17904159, John Vogt, Judge. Affirmed.
Paul Couenhoven, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Catherine Chatman and Erin Doering, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
EDMON, P. J.
A jury found Victor Dominguez-Gomez guilty of murdering his ex-girlfriend, Rocio Medina Gomez. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in admitting statements the victim made in the months preceding her death about defendant's threats to her. He further contends that the trial court erred in precluding a defense expert's testimony and instructing the jury on flight. We find no reversible error and affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
I. Prosecution evidence
Jose Luis Medina Gomez and the victim Rocio Medina Gomez were siblings. Jose and defendant, Victor, were lifelong friends, and at some point, Rocio began dating Victor. Rocio and Victor lived together in a garage apartment next to Jose's house, but they broke up several months before July 2017, and Victor moved out.
Because Jose Gomez, Rocio Gomez, and defendant share the same or similar last names, we refer to them by their first names to avoid confusion, intending no disrespect.
Once, when Rocio and Victor were still together, Rocio came to Jose's house, crying and saying that Victor had tried to strangle her. Victor was with her, holding the baby he and Rocio had together. Jose and his wife saw red marks on Rocio's neck. Victor apologized and told Jose that he would never do anything like that. But about a week before Rocio was killed, she told Jose that Victor had threatened to kill her and had said if she wasn't with him, she could not be with anyone else. Rocio reassured Jose that Victor wouldn't do anything to her. Jose talked to Victor about what Rocio had said, and Victor said he loved Rocio and asked Jose to forgive him.
Rocio later took the baby to Mexico to live with her parents, which made Victor unhappy.
After Rocio and Victor broke up, Victor sent numerous text messages to Rocio in June and July 2017 saying, for example, that he just wanted her in his life and he felt dead, asking for her forgiveness, and telling her," 'Goodbye. I will never bother you again.'" Rocio generally did not respond to these messages. However, on June 25, 2017, she texted him, asking him to" 'leave it, okay?'" She blocked Victor on Facebook.
On the evening of July 14, 2017, Victor went to Jose's house to get a car part. While there, Victor ran into Rocio, and she asked him what he was doing there. Later that night, Jose was at home with friends and family, including Rocio. Rocio went back to her apartment sometime around midnight because she had to work in the morning. Jose and his wife went to bed about 1:00 or 2:00 a.m.
At about 5:30 or 6:00 a.m., someone knocked on Jose's door. It was Rocio and Victor, who said," 'Hey, brother-in-law, I'm back with your sister.'" Rocio motioned slightly with her head, turning it an inch or two. Jose was upset at them for coming over so early, but Rocio and Victor went into the kitchen, with Victor hugging Rocio from behind. Jose then realized that Victor had a knife to Rocio's throat. Victor, said," 'I told you I was going to kill you'" and stabbed Rocio in the stomach.
Jose threw a chair at Victor's head, and Victor came at Jose with the knife. Jose ran to his wife and told her to call the police. Jose grabbed a lamp to throw at Victor, but Victor had already run away. Although Jose went outside to look for Victor, Jose couldn't find him. Jose returned to the house and tried to help Rocio by stemming the bleeding.
Meanwhile, Victor called Enrique Villasenor, from whom Victor rented a room, and asked Villasenor to pick him up.When Villasenor got there, Victor was bleeding, his forehead was injured, and he said he'd been in a fight. Although Villasenor wanted Victor to call the police or an ambulance, Victor said he did not want to live alone and wanted to be dumped somewhere by himself. Villasenor took him home, and Victor went to his room. Feeling that Victor's story didn't add up, Villasenor drove back to the area where he had picked up Victor. There, he saw a police officer and told him where Victor was. He also said that Victor might be intoxicated and that he had seen Victor using drugs on several occasions.
Taxi driver Alfonso Esquivias testified that at about 9:00 or 10:00 p.m. on July 14, 2017, he drove Victor to a nightclub. Not long thereafter, on the morning of July 15, 2017 at about 3:40 a.m., he took Victor to a location near Rocio's home.
Law enforcement went to Villasenor's house, surrounded it, and called to Victor to come out. When Victor did not come out, an officer went inside with a K-9 dog and brought Victor out. When he was arrested, Victor had a wound on his forehead, another to his neck, and another to the tip of his right middle finger. The neck wound, which was apparently self-inflicted, was potentially life threatening.
Rocio died later that morning from multiple stab wounds. She had three stab wounds to the right side of her chest. One wound penetrated her right lung and was two inches deep, and another was three inches deep and had penetrated muscles and the liver and had damaged the hepatic vein. Rocio also had two stab wounds to her arm and two stab wounds to her leg.
Law enforcement recovered the knife Victor used to kill Rocio from Jose's kitchen. Victor had taken the knife from Villasenor's kitchen and brought it to Rocio's. A second knife recovered from Jose's kitchen had Victor's blood on it.
Detectives interviewed Victor on July 16, 2017. Victor admitted he had pushed Rocio in the past. On the night he killed her, he said that after Rocio let him into her apartment, they fought about him wanting to get back together and he pushed her. But then she agreed to get back together, and she wanted to tell her brother. At Jose's house, Jose told Rocio to leave Victor, and Jose started pulling on Victor and yelling at him. Victor said that Jose" 'threw a slash at me and I don't know who I buried a knife into.'" Jose also threw a chair at him.
II. Defense evidence
Victor testified that he had known Rocio since they were kids in Mexico, but they didn't start dating until 2014, when he was about 20 years old. They had a baby together in 2017.
Victor admitted that he had used cocaine since he was 12 or 13 years old.
Although he and Rocio separated in May 2017, they saw each other frequently, and he was always at her house.
On the night of July 14, 2017, Victor had some beer at home, and then he went to a nightclub where he continued to drink and to take cocaine. He went home in the early morning hours of July 15, 2017, continuing to drink and do drugs. Rocio called him and asked him to come over. Because his car wasn't working, he thought he might have to walk to her home, so he grabbed a knife from the kitchen because it was a dangerous area. However, he ended up taking a taxi to Rocio's apartment. When he got to Rocio's apartment at about 4:00 a.m., they talked and agreed to live together again. Rocio insisted they go to Jose's house to share the news, and although Victor protested that it was too early, he eventually agreed.
When Jose answered the door, Victor told him that he and Rocio were going to live together again. They went to the kitchen, and Jose asked what kind of game they were playing and what was going on. Victor had his arms around Rocio when he heard her say," 'No. Jose, no.'" Jose came at Victor with a knife, and blood starting pouring down Victor's face, blinding him.Remembering that he too had a knife, Victor tried to stab Jose, but Rocio was between the two men. All that Victor could remember was Rocio yelling that "we had gotten her." Scared, Victor dropped the knife. He did not remember stabbing Rocio multiple times, Jose picking up a chair, calling Villasenor to pick him up, or trying to cut his own throat.
Jose denied attacking Victor with a knife.
According to a forensic nurse, the wound to Victor's forehead most likely resulted from a sharp object such as a knife because the wound had clean edges rather than irregular ones, which would more likely result from blunt force trauma.
III. Verdict and sentence
A jury found Victor not guilty of first degree murder but guilty of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and found that he personally used a knife (id., § 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The jury acquitted Victor of assaulting Jose with a deadly weapon. On December 15, 2020, the trial court sentenced Victor to 15 years to life plus one year for the weapon enhancement.
DISCUSSION
I. Admissibility of Rocio's prior statements
Victor contends that Rocio's statements to Jose about Victor's prior abuse were inadmissible. The contention is meritless.
Before trial, the court held a hearing under Evidence Codesection 402 to determine the admissibility of Rocio's statements to Jose about Victor. Jose testified at the hearing largely in accord with his later trial testimony, i.e., that Rocio told him that Victor had grabbed her once and strangled her another time. The People argued that Rocio's statements were admissible under the state of mind exception to hearsay in section 1250, because they showed she feared Victor, so she would not have gone willingly with him to Jose's house the night she was murdered. The defense countered that Rocio had said she wasn't afraid of Victor and had told Jose that she didn't think Victor would hurt her, so she went willingly with Victor to Jose's house. The trial court found that the evidence was admissible under section 1250 to explain Rocio's conduct "at this odd hour of the day" in going with Victor to Jose's house.
All further undesignated statutory references are to the Evidence Code.
We review the trial court's evidentiary ruling for an abuse of discretion. (People v. Kovacich (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 863, 884.)
Section 1250 provides that evidence of a statement of the declarant's then existing state of mind is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule when it is offered to prove the declarant's state of mind at that time or at any other time when it is itself an issue in the action or is offered to prove or explain the declarant's acts or conduct. A victim's out-of-court statement that she feared the defendant is admissible under this section when the victim's conduct is not in conformity with that fear and is in dispute. (People v. Noguera (1992) 4 Cal.4th 599, 621.) For example, when the defendant claims that the victim has acted inconsistently with the victim's prior statements of fear, those statements are admissible. (People v. Kovacich, supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at pp. 884-885.) However, a victim's statements of fear are inadmissible to prove the defendant's conduct or state of mind. (Noguera, at p. 622.)
Here, the statements Rocio made to her brother in the months preceding her death were admissible under section 1250. Her statements that Victor had strangled and threatened to kill her show she would not have willingly agreed to resume her relationship with him and did not go willingly with him to Jose's house at about 5:00 a.m. These statements contradicted Victor's story that Rocio asked him to come over that night, she agreed to get back together with him, and she insisted they go to Jose's house at such an odd hour of the morning to share the news with him. Rocio's conduct was therefore in dispute, so her prior statements were admissible to show her state of mind the night she died.
This case is similar to People v. Cox (2003) 30 Cal.4th 916, 957, where the trial court admitted the murder victim's statement made several days before she disappeared that she was afraid of the defendant. To show that the victim went willingly with the defendant, the defense elicited evidence that the victim would get into a car even with a stranger. (Ibid.) The appellate court held that the victim's prior statement she feared the defendant was admissible to show that she would not have voluntarily gotten into his car, and instead he used a weapon to force her into the car. (Id. at pp. 957-958; see, e.g., People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 723 [evidence of murder victim's statements that she feared defendant admissible under state of mind exception to hearsay rule when placed at issue]; People v. Lew (1968) 68 Cal.2d 774, 778-780 [decedent's fear was relevant to disprove defendant's claim decedent was sitting on his lap and examining his gun when it accidentally discharged].) Similarly here, Rocio's statements showed she would not have gone willingly to Jose's house, but Victor forced her to do so at knifepoint.
Disapproved on other grounds by People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421, footnote 22.
Victor, however, points out that there was evidence that Rocio had said she wasn't afraid of him and that he wouldn't hurt her. Relying on these statements, he argues that Rocio was not afraid of him and therefore her statements about his abuse were irrelevant. However, neither we nor the trial court have to accept Victor's interpretation of the evidence. Rather, Rocio might have told her brother that she wasn't afraid of Victor simply to allay Jose's concerns. Indeed, that she feared Victor and wanted nothing to do with him were evidenced by her general silence to his text messages and refusal to resume their relationship.
Nor do we agree with Victor's argument that Rocio's state of mind was irrelevant because there "is no logic" to the suggestion he dragged Rocio to Jose's house to kill her in front of her brother. We have no duty to find logic in the illogic of murder. But to the extent there is "logic" to what Victor did, he might have wanted to kill Rocio in front of his lifelong friend to emphasize his control over her.
We therefore find the cases Victor cites unpersuasive. In People v. Armendariz (1984) 37 Cal.3d 573, 585, the trial court admitted the victim's statement to his son that the victim was afraid of the defendant. The son went to his father's house on the night of the murder to protect him. The appellate court held that evidence the victim feared the defendant was inadmissible because while it explained why the son went to the victim's house that night, it did not explain any disputed conduct of the victim. (Ibid.) The victim's statement that he feared the defendant was also irrelevant because the defense did not claim that the victim willingly let the defendant into his house, and there was no evidence that the killing was accidental or justifiable. (Id. at p. 587.) Accordingly, the victim's state of mind was irrelevant. (Ibid.; see, e.g., People v. Arcega (1982) 32 Cal.3d 504, 526-528 [defense never raised issue as to decedent's conduct immediately before her death; therefore decedent's statements she feared defendant were inadmissible]; People v. Ireland (1969) 70 Cal.2d 522, 528-530 [decedent's statement she knew defendant irrelevant to any issue in case].)
Because we find that the trial court acted well within its discretion in admitting Rocio's statements to Jose, we need not address Victor's argument that the alleged error was prejudicial. II. Exclusion of defense expert testimony
The trial court excluded the testimony of Dr. Avak Howsepian, a defense expert who was going to testify about how trauma and drug use can cause a memory deficit. As we explain, no prejudicial error occurred.
A. Additional background
Before trial, the People moved to exclude the testimony of defense expert psychiatrist Dr. Howsepian. The defense proffered that he would testify about how traumatic events and cocaine use can cause memory deficit. The People objected to the evidence because, first, the defense had provided just a brief email about the doctor one week earlier, and, second, the evidence was irrelevant and would mislead the jury under section 352.
The defense also represented that the doctor would testify there are two types of criminal violence, predatory and affective. Victor makes no argument on appeal that it was error to exclude this testimony.
At a section 402 hearing, Dr. Howsepian testified that he works with patients who have experienced highly emotional and traumatic events, and he therefore could opine on those issues. He had not, however, examined Victor.
The trial court excluded the doctor's testimony, finding that there was no toxicology report showing Victor's cocaine use, so there was no basis for the doctor's opinion. As to memory deficit, the trial court said there was no "specific information upon which the doctor could opine that any issues of posttraumatic stress syndrome or specific high levels of stress actually apply in this particular case. The theories would be offered in a vacuum with no basis for the doctor to offer any type of opinion as to how it might apply to this defendant." The trial court also found that the defense's failure to provide timely discovery about the expert precluded the People from effectively cross-examining him.
B. No abuse of discretion
Only relevant evidence is admissible. (§ 350.) Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact of consequence to determining the action. (§ 210.) Relevant evidence might include an expert's testimony about matters that are sufficiently beyond common experience such that the expert's opinion would assist the trier of fact. (§ 801.) However, even relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability its admission will necessitate undue consumption of time or create a substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or misleading the jury. (§ 352.)
A trial court has broad discretion to admit or exclude expert testimony, and we review its ruling for abuse of discretion. (People v. Brown (2014) 59 Cal.4th 86, 101; see also People v. Minifie (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1055, 1070 [rulings under § 352 are reviewed for abuse of discretion].)
As an initial matter, Victor does not address the trial court's finding that the defense failed to timely produce discovery about Dr. Howsepian, thereby adversely affecting the prosecution's ability to cross examine him. We therefore assume the objection on that ground was well taken and is a sufficient ground on which to affirm the trial court's ruling excluding the doctor's testimony.
On the merits, Victor does not argue that the excluded evidence was relevant to any material fact such as motive or to an element of the crime such as his intent. (See generally People v. Covarrubias (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 942, 948 [evidence is relevant if it tends to establish material facts such as motive or intent]; see, e.g., People v. Edwards (2013) 57 Cal.4th 658, 695 [evidence of defendant's alcoholic blackouts introduced to show he was in unconscious state when he committed murders].)
Victor instead argues that the excluded evidence went to his "defense" because it showed he gave an honest account of what he could recall about that night and was not trying to minimize his guilt. Without the doctor's testimony, Victor argues that he was unable to present that "defense." Not so. Victor had a meaningful opportunity to show that he did not remember all the events of that night. (See generally Crane v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 683, 690 [criminal defendants have constitutional right to meaningful opportunity to present a defense].) That is, he presented evidence that he was a long time substance abuser. Victor said he'd used cocaine since he was 12 or 13 years old, and it was one of the reasons Rocio broke up with him. His roommate, Villasenor, testified that he had seen Victor intoxicated and use drugs while they lived together. Victor also testified that he had been drinking and using cocaine before killing Rocio. Cocaine metabolites and opiates were in his urine on July 16, 2017. Victor accordingly testified he didn't remember what happened after Jose attacked him with a knife. Therefore, not only was there ample evidence that Victor was intoxicated, but the jury was capable of evaluating that evidence, even in the absence of Dr. Howsepian's testimony. That someone who has consumed alcohol and cocaine might have memory lapses, to some extent is a matter of common sense that the jury could consider in the absence of the expert testimony.
Indeed, the jury was instructed it could consider evidence of voluntary intoxication in deciding whether Victor acted with an intent to kill or with deliberation and premeditation.
In any event, we cannot agree that any error in excluding Dr. Howsepian's testimony requires reversal of the judgment under any standard. (See, e.g., Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard]; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome standard].) Had the expert's testimony been admitted, Victor argues, the jury would have found him guilty of a lesser degree of murder. He thus suggests that there was "considerable evidence" he was guilty of only voluntary manslaughter because Jose stabbed him first and, blinded by the blood pouring down his face, Victor remembered that he too had a knife, so he grabbed it to defend himself but accidentally stabbed Rocio instead. He further points to evidence that supported his version of events: Villasenor's testimony that Jose's forehead was injured when Villasenor picked him up that night, a knife was in the kitchen with Victor's blood on it, and a forensic nurse testified that Victor's forehead injury likely resulted from a sharp object like a knife.
However, Jose denied stabbing Victor but admitted he threw a chair at Victor to get him to stop stabbing Rocio. This reasonably explained Victor's injury, and there was no evidence that a chair could not have caused it. While Victor's blood was on the second knife found in the kitchen, Jose's DNA was not on it. And there were other explanations for the presence of Victor's blood on the knife, given the violence of the crime scene.
Otherwise, there was overwhelming evidence that Victor intended to kill Rocio that night. Victor had a motive to kill Rocio: he was unhappy that she took their child to live in Mexico, and he was despondent and angry that she broke up with him. In text messages, he begged her to come back to him, but she didn't respond or refused to resume their relationship. When they were still together, Victor had strangled Rocio, leaving visible marks. And although the jury rejected the first degree murder charge, Victor admitted he took a knife from Villasenor's home and brought it with him to Rocio's that night. This was strong evidence that he intended to kill her. (See, e.g., People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, 636 [bringing loaded gun shows violence was considered]; People v. Steele (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1230, 1250 [bringing knife to victim's home raises inference he considered possibility of murder at outset].) Indeed, even in Victor's version of events, he admitted that when he got to Rocio's apartment they fought, and he pushed her.
Next, Jose testified that when his sister and Victor came to his door that night, Victor said he was back with Rocio, while Rocio motioned with her head, no, she wasn't back with him. Then, just before stabbing Rocio, Victor said," 'I told you I was going to kill you.'" Victor stabbed Rocio at least seven times, which severely undermined his contention that he accidentally stabbed her. (See People v. Pride (1992) 3 Cal.4th 195, 247 [violent, bloody death resulting from multiple stab wounds is consistent with premeditation finding].) After stabbing Rocio, Victor fled and called Villasenor for a ride. He then told Villasenor that he did not want to live alone and wanted to be dumped somewhere by himself. These statements show a consciousness of guilt. (See People v. Pettigrew (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 477, 498 &fn. 5 [suicide attempt can be circumstantial evidence of guilt].)
There were also significant problems with Victor's story. He said, for example, that he went to Rocio's at such a strange hour at her request. However, Victor had been at Jose's earlier that evening, and Rocio had asked why he was there, raising the inference she didn't want to see him. Also, Jose testified that Rocio went to bed around midnight because she had to work in the morning, which shows she did not want Victor to come over. Victor also said that Rocio insisted on going to Jose's at about 5:00 a.m., when she must have known Jose and his family were sleeping. This was simply not as plausible as the very reasonable inference raised by the evidence: Victor took Rocio at knifepoint to her brother's house to kill her.
III. Flight instruction
The trial court instructed the jury that if Victor "fled or tried to flee immediately after the crime was committed, that conduct may show that he was aware of his guilt. If you conclude that the defendant fled or tried to flee, it is up to you to decide the meaning and importance of that conduct. However, evidence that the defendant fled or tried to flee cannot prove guilt by itself." Victor now contends that there was no evidentiary basis to give this instruction, to which he did not object.
In a criminal case, even absent a request, the trial court must instruct on the general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence and necessary for the jury's understanding of the case. (People v. Molano (2019) 7 Cal.5th 620, 667.) A trial court must instruct on flight when the prosecution relies on evidence of a defendant's flight as tending to show guilt. (Pen Code, § 1127c; People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192, 1224.) Flight requires a purpose to avoid being observed or arrested. (People v. Visciotti (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1, 60.)
As an initial matter, defense counsel did not object to the instruction and therefore any issue as to it has been forfeited. (See generally People v. Anderson (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1249 [failing to object to instruction constitutes forfeiture of claim of error unless defendant's substantial rights affected].)
We nonetheless address the issue's merits. Victor contends that the flight instruction was irrelevant because he conceded he was guilty of murder, albeit in a lesser degree than first degree murder. However, the jury was instructed on self-defense as a complete defense to all crimes and not just to first degree murder. But even if Victor's main theory at trial was that he was guilty of some lesser degree of murder such as manslaughter, a jury could have found that flight weighed in favor of or against the degree of murder. That is, a jury could believe fleeing evidenced first degree murder or voluntary manslaughter. Therefore, evidence that Victor fled was relevant to the degree of murder.
In any event, there was an evidentiary basis for the flight instruction. Jose testified that after he threw a chair at Victor, Jose asked his wife to call 911. When he returned to the kitchen, Victor had run away, and although Jose went after him, Victor had gone. Villasenor testified that Victor called him, so Villasenor picked him up and took him home, even though Victor just wanted to be dumped somewhere. And when police surrounded the house and told Victor to come out, he ignored them and had to be dragged out by a K-9 dog. This was overwhelming evidence that Victor wanted to avoid being observed or arrested. (People v. Visciotti, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 60.)
Victor again interprets the evidence differently. He says he didn't flee out of guilt: he fled because Jose had stabbed him and thrown a chair at him, so fleeing was a "normal reaction," as it would have been "suicidal" for him to stay. This might be Victor's view of the evidence, but another reasonable one is he fled because he had just killed Rocio. The law is not that the flight instruction should be refused if there is more than one interpretation of the evidence. The law is that the instruction must be given where, as here, there is evidence of flight, and the prosecution relies on that evidence to show consciousness of guilt. (People v. Rangel, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 1224.)
The facts here are not analogous to those in People v. Clem (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 337, which Victor cites to show that the instruction should not have been given. In that case, the defendant raped a woman in her car and then left. He was arrested two weeks later at work. The appellate court found that the mere fact the defendant did not remain at the crime scene "for a time sufficiently convenient to enable the police to affect his arrest, but was arrested some days later at a different locale is insufficient evidence to warrant" a flight instruction. (Id. at p. 344; accord, People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 38-39 [flight instruction unwarranted where defendant didn't stay at remote crime scene].) In contrast, Victor did not simply leave a remote crime scene and return home. He ran from his friend's house, called a taxi, and asked to be dumped somewhere by himself. Once home, Victor further tried to evade arrest by refusing to come out when the police arrived. Given this evidence, no error occurred in giving the flight instruction.
IV. Cumulative error
Victor asserts that the cumulative effect of the purported errors requires reversal, even if they were individually harmless. Because we have found no prejudicial error, "there is no cumulative prejudice to address." (People v. Landry (2016) 2 Cal.5th 52, 101.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: EGERTON, J. RICHARDSON (ANNE K.), J. [*]
[*] Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.