Opinion
A165025
11-28-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ERIC WILLIAM RINEHART, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Napa County Super. Ct. No. 18CR003973.
Banke, J.
Defendant Eric William Rinehart appeals from his conviction of one count of corporal injury to his girlfriend (victim), a cohabitant and someone with whom defendant had a dating relationship. (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a).) He raises a single issue on appeal-that the trial court, sitting as the trier of fact, erred in finding the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense and, specifically, that the force he used in the altercation exceeded what was reasonable under the circumstances. We affirm.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
BACKGROUND
Summary of the Evidence
Defendant was involved in an altercation with the victim at their residence on Thanksgiving night, 2018. The People eventually filed an amended information charging defendant with one count of corporal injury to the victim (§ 273.5, subd. (a)), with a special allegation defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury under circumstances involving domestic violence (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)). Defendant waived a jury trial and the matter was tried by the court.
Victim's Testimony: The victim met defendant in 2015, and they had an on-and-off relationship for three years. They resided in a guesthouse on property on which her mother lived in the main house.
On the day of the incident, she and defendant saw a movie at a theater and then had dinner at her mother's house. After dinner, she and defendant walked back to the guesthouse. While they were in the living room watching television, the victim stood alongside the bed (in the living room) on which the defendant was sitting and commented defendant never wanted anyone near his cell phone but he always had access to her phone. "[Defendant] went into an immediate rage." He jumped off the bed, yelled" 'shut the fuck up,'" and with closed fists punched her repeatedly in the eyes, nose, head and chest. She begged for her life but defendant continued to beat her.
Defendant then threw her to the floor and continued to use closed fists to hit her eyes, nose, head, chest, arms, legs and back. He also kicked her in the back. She heard cracking in her head, and blood was going everywhere. The victim was unable to defend herself and did not attempt to fight back. She eventually managed to get out of the house and crawl to her mother's house, where she screamed for help and knocked on the window. After law enforcement and paramedics arrived, the victim was scared to name defendant as her assailant because she was terrified he was going to come back and "finish [her] off." An ambulance took her to the hospital.
After returning from the hospital the following day, she and her mother went to the guesthouse, where defendant opened the door. He was angry and said to the victim," 'You broke your own nose'" and" 'I'm not someone you ever want to mess with.' "
The assault left the victim with pain in her eyes, nose, head, chest, arms, back, and legs. The bridge of her nose was split open. She had bruising on her face, eyes, chest, forehead and legs, lumps all over her head, and a hemorrhage inside her left eye. The attack caused her to have blurry vision. Her back pain caused a progression of immobility requiring the use of crutches, a walker, and a wheelchair. Eventually she was bedridden and had to relearn how to walk. At the time of trial, more than three years after the incident, the victim still had residual injuries, including headaches and pain inside her eyes and in her legs.
The victim testified she and defendant were not arguing over his phone; it was just a "discussion." She denied walking over to defendant and hitting him. She did not try to take his phone away, and there were no phone messages that precipitated the discussion.
She further testified defendant had never hit her before, and she denied ever having hit defendant. At the time of the incident, the victim was 5 feet 9 inches tall and weighed 125 pounds.
Victim's Mother's Testimony: The victim's mother awoke the night of the incident on hearing the victim banging and yelling she needed help. The victim's face was covered in blood and she had a large bruise in the center of her forehead. After she and her daughter returned from the hospital, she looked at the victim's injuries and saw both eyes were swollen, there were lumps on her head, and a large bump on her forehead, there were three lacerations on her nose, her lip was split, her gums were bleeding, there was an abrasion on her right hand, bruising on the back of her legs, and a bruise on her chest in the sternum.
The day after the incident, she and the victim went to the guesthouse and encountered defendant, who said something to the victim about how she had broken her own nose and also said," 'You don't mess with a guy like me.'" After defendant left, she went into the guesthouse to get the victim's clothes and saw blood smeared around in the mudroom, on the living room carpet, and on a comforter on the bed.
ER Physician's Testimony: The doctor who examined the victim in the emergency room testified the victim had blood on her face, swelling around her eyes, swelling of her nose and a laceration on the bridge of her nose, a bruise on her chest, and a hematoma on her forehead. The victim's left and right nasal bones were broken. The pattern of injuries was consistent with more than one punch to the face, but it was possible it could be from two punches.
Responding Deputy's Testimony: One of the deputies who responded to the incident testified about statements defendant provided on the day of the incident-one at the scene while sitting in a patrol car, and the other at the jail after being arrested. The two statements were similar. At the scene defendant was described as calm, cooperative and matter-of-fact and he did not appear concerned about what had transpired. The deputy did not note any injuries to defendant.
Defendant's Testimony: Defendant related several prior incidents where the victim had been the aggressor. One "alarming" incident had occurred a few months earlier, when he and the victim heard what sounded like someone outside their house racking a shotgun. The victim wanted defendant to go outside to investigate, but he told her to not worry and to stay away from the windows. However, the victim became irate, ran outside, and called the police. Another incident occurred while the victim was standing and watching television and tried to "chop" him in the throat. She did a punching combination, all of which he blocked. When defendant asked the victim what she was doing, she commented on the fact defendant was a pro mixed martial arts (MMA) fighter. There had also been an incident where defendant believed the victim had taken his cell phone.
On the day of the incident in question, defendant and the victim had a normal Thanksgiving dinner and returned to their house and started watching television. They were laying in the bed in the living room, with the lights off, and he had closed his eyes to go to sleep. Defendant received a notification on his phone, looked at his phone, and put it back down. Without saying anything, the victim got out of bed, turned on the lights, and looked "irate." She ran around to defendant's side of the bed. He screamed" '[g]et away from me.'" The victim started hitting him, taking full swings and bobbing and weaving. He blocked her swings, but she kept hitting him and was connecting blows on his forearms and shins. Defendant was scared as he lay on his back in a fetal position, and worked his legs around trying not to get hit. The victim punched him at least 10 times. She could not penetrate through his defenses, so she started hitting his head and groin, and she connected with his groin. While still on his back and using his right hand to block the victim's blows, he hit the victim in her face with a "double left combo," then scrambled to his feet. He punched the victim only twice, with his left hand. He felt something bad would happen to him if he did not punch her, and stated it was the "necessary force" to stop the attack.
After he stood up, defendant determined the victim was "noncombative" as she had dropped to her knees and looked disoriented. Defendant did not hit the victim again. The victim looked at defendant and asked," 'Can I go?'" and defendant replied," 'Yes, you can.' "
Defendant watched from the window as the victim quickly walked to her mother's house. When she left, her only injuries were two strikes to the nose.
Defendant returned to the guest house the following day after being released from jail. As he loaded his truck, the victim and her mother arrived. The victim showed him her nose and told him to look at what he had done; he replied that she had done it to herself. She had attacked him knowing he outmatched her physically.
Defendant was a skilled fighter. He had a background in wrestling and had worked out in an MMA gym 11 years earlier. He knew how to throw a proper punch from having a punching bag when he was younger and he had taken a couple of boxing lessons. He had a punching bag at the house he shared with the victim. Defendant testified that in fighting parlance a "combination" is more than one punch. A "set" is also more than one punch, and a "full set" is "gibberish." Defendant acknowledged using the latter phrase at the time of the incident, and said it came out of his mouth but sounded nonsensical. "Flurries" are multiple punches, but not necessarily more than two. At the time of the incident, defendant was 5 feet, 11 inches tall and weighed 185 to 190 pounds.
During defendant's cross-examination, the prosecutor played three body-camera footage videos of the deputies' conversations with him on the night of the incident, two at the scene and one at the jail.
In the video footage at the scene, defendant stated the victim started "swinging on" him, and when the deputy asked how he defended himself, defendant said he "stood up and hit a set on her." When the deputy asked defendant to show him what a set was, defendant described his actions as looking like he was hitting a speed bag. At trial, defendant testified his swinging actions were not what he had done to the victim. And regarding his hitting a "set" on the victim, defendant testified, "there was no thought into any of that.... It just sounds like gibberish now that we speak about it." In explaining the statements he gave at the scene, defendant testified, "It wasn't rehearsed. I didn't think about it."
In the video footage of the statement defendant gave while in a patrol car, he agreed with the deputy that he and the victim had gotten into an argument over his phone. He added that the victim was "prying" into his business. When asked how the victim got so beat up, defendant stated he hit her-he "put a full set on her . . . big flurries," motioning with both arms. After watching this footage at trial, defendant testified he had never talked like that in his life. Regarding his statement that the victim was "prying" into his business, defendant testified, "I don't know why I would even say something like that" and "I wasn't really myself right at that time."
In the video footage of the jailhouse interview, the deputy asked how long defendant and the victim had argued about the cell phone message, and defendant replied five minutes. At trial, defendant agreed he had made that statement, but denied that there had been an argument. In the video defendant also said the victim had gotten out of bed, walked around to his side, screamed at him to provoke him, and then hit him on the top of the head and started swinging at him. When the deputy asked about his other statements that he had given the victim "a set," defendant replied he gave her a "combination." The deputy asked, "so rights and lefts, closed fists . . . to her face?" and defendant replied, "yeah." At trial, defendant did not dispute these statements, but testified he was just saying yes to everything he was asked.
On the night of the incident, defendant also told the deputies he was not injured. At trial, defendant testified the victim had, in fact, made contact with his groin and he was sore the next day. He admitted, however, he never told anyone his groin was sore.
The Court's Decision
The trial court concluded the only significant issue was whether defendant's use of force was reasonable under the circumstances. It concluded it was not.
To find a defendant guilty of felony domestic violence under section 273.5, subdivision (a), the prosecution must prove (1) the defendant willfully inflicted a physical injury on his cohabitant/dating partner; (2) the injury resulted in a traumatic condition; and (3) the defendant did not act in selfdefense. (CALCRIM No. 840.)
The court noted numerous inconsistencies between defendant's statements at the time of the incident and his trial testimony and did not find credible defendant's claim that he struck the victim only twice. "The Court noticed numerous medical records . . . that indicated trauma near the scalp and the arm and multiple bruising [sic.] [¶] This corroboration to [the victim's] testimony leads the Court to believe that the assault was more of the nature that was shown at the scene with [ defendant's] 'did a set on her' [language] and swinging hands furiously demonstrated by [defendant]."
Defendant "stated that that statement to the deputies at the time was-'it wasn't rehearsed,' he said. 'I hadn't thought about it.' [¶] And that is the type of reason why statements at the scene and spontaneous statements are given more weight and credibility . . . that seems to be one of the most believable statements, given everything that happened."
The court also found the victim was not entirely without responsibility for the incident. "I do think that [the victim] attempted to provoke this incident, in a sense, by the talk about the phone and potentially even grabbing the phone."
The court went on to conclude, however, that under all the circumstances, defendant used "an unreasonable amount of force," noting, as well, the disparity in weight between the victim and defendant. "[W]ith [defendant's] level of sophistication and fighting skills, [he] could have done significantly less . . ." than beating up the victim and inflicting the serious injuries she sustained. "[T]he belief that [defendant] . . . needed to use such an amount of force is unreasonable and . . . a reasonable person would not believe that this amount of force would be necessary in the same situation."
The court therefore found defendant guilty of violating section 273.5, subdivision (a), and found the special allegation to be true. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on five years' probation subject to certain terms and conditions.
DISCUSSION
To evaluate a claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence,"' "we review the whole record to determine whether . . . [there is] substantial evidence to support the verdict . . . such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] In applying this test, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the [trier of fact] could reasonably have deduced from the evidence." '" (People v. Waqa (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 565, 576.) Substantial evidence is evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value. (People v. Oliver (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 466, 480.) If the conviction is" 'supported by substantial evidence, we are bound to give due deference to the trier of fact and not retry the case ourselves.'" (People v. Whitmore (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 116, 130.) Reversal is required only if" '" 'it appears "that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support"' [the conviction]." '" (People v. Waqa, p. 576.) In a bench trial, the trial court"' "is vested with the power to judge the credibility of the witnesses, resolve any conflicts in the testimony, weigh the evidence and draw factual inferences ...." '" (People v. Arebalos-Cabrera (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 179, 186.)
A valid claim of self-defense requires the defendant to have an honest and reasonable belief that he was in imminent danger of suffering bodily injury, a reasonable belief that the immediate use of force was necessary to defend against that danger, and defendant must respond with an amount of force that is reasonable under the circumstances. (People v. Brady (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1008, 1014; CALCRIM No. 3470.) Reasonableness for purposes of self-defense is judged from the point of view of a reasonable person in the defendant's position. (People v. Horn (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 672, 683.) The trier of fact" 'must consider all the"' "facts and circumstances . . . in determining whether the defendant acted in a manner in which a reasonable man would act in protecting his own life or bodily safety." '" '" (Ibid.) If the evidence is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt whether defendant's self-defense was justified, then he is entitled to an acquittal. (People v. Lloyd (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 49, 62.)
The specifics of defendant's substantial evidence challenge to the court's decision do not appear until pages 31 and 32 of his 33-page opening brief. He makes three specific arguments.
The first is that his testimony of prior attacks by the victim on him "went unrebutted." He claims this means he "was faced with an escalation of [the victim's] violence, permitting him to fend off her attack." However, regardless of whether the victim previously attacked him, the issue in the case at hand was whether the force defendant brought to bear on the night in question was reasonable under the circumstances. The trial court found it was not.
Defendant's second specific argument is that the trial "court did not decide the case based on credibility of the respective parties to the fight but instead on the element of self-defense that poses the issue whether the amount of force used was unreasonable." As we have recited, that is not the case. Most significantly, the court did not find credible defendant's testimony that he struck the victim only twice to ward off a vigorous attack by the victim.
While the trial court found the victim may have provoked defendant by complaining about his cell phone and perhaps even reaching for it, the court did not find that the victim began to beat on defendant, as he claimed. The court also found defendant did not strike the victim only twice. To the contrary, it expressly disbelieved his testimony to that effect, concluding the victim's testimony and the medical records told a different version of events. Defendant claims the medical records "showed injuries consistent with" his "limited actions" defending himself. He provides no record citation to any such testimony, but presumably he is referring to the emergency room physician's testimony that the "general pattern [of the injuries] is consistent with more than one punch to the face" and comment on cross-examination that it could have been just two punches. However, the emergency room physician admitted he had no recollection of treating the victim, and the trial court was not required to accept his speculation that the injuries noted in the emergency room medical records could have been caused by two punches. There was abundant other evidence that defendant repeatedly pummeled the victim, causing her serious and long-lasting injuries.
Defendant's third argument is that the trial court "overlooked" his testimony describing the victim's attack on him and his restrained response of first" 'kicking and bobbing and weaving'" in a defensive mode and then "the two punches he threw" that "ended the fight." He thus concludes he "acted reasonably in fending off and stopping" the victim's attack. The victim, however, testified to a very different version of events and, specifically, the extent of defendant's force and the damage it inflicted on her. It is well established that the testimony of even a single witness suffices to withstand a substantial evidence challenge on appeal. (People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 646.) Furthermore, the victim's testimony was corroborated by her mother's testimony, the testimony of the responding deputy, the video footage of defendant's statements at the time of the incident, and additional medical records documenting a multiplicity of injuries.
In sum, the record discloses that the trial court carefully considered the evidence and explained the reasons for its finding that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant could not claim self-defense. The record further discloses that the court's finding is supported by substantial evidence.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is AFFIRMED.
We concur: Margulies, Acting P.J. Getty, J.[*]
[*] Judge of the Solano County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.