## Facts

- In 1982, Janet Kovacich told her husband, Paul Ralph Kovacich, Jr., that she was leaving him and taking their two young children; she disappeared soon afterward.
- The prosecution presented evidence of marital discord, including testimony that defendant was controlling and abusive and admitted infidelity.
- Within two days of the disappearance, defendant was seen publicly with another woman.
- Despite being a sheriff’s deputy and trained dog handler, defendant did not take an active role in searching for Janet and allegedly told a girlfriend Janet “wasn’t coming back.”
- In 1995, a human skull fragment was found near Rollins Lake, an area defendant had experience patrolling.
- The skull fragment had a hole consistent with an entrance wound from a large-caliber handgun similar to one issued to defendant as a law enforcement officer.
- The skull fragment was not conclusively identified as Janet’s until 2007.
- The prosecution introduced out-of-court statements attributed to Janet indicating fear of defendant, testimony that defendant kicked the family dog to death, and expert testimony on intimate partner abuse to explain victim behavior.
- More than 26 years after the disappearance, a jury convicted defendant of first degree murder and found true a personal firearm-use enhancement; the court imposed 25 years to life plus a consecutive two-year term.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the first degree murder conviction and firearm-use enhancement where the case was largely circumstantial.
2. Whether the trial court erred by admitting out-of-court statements reflecting the victim’s fear of defendant.
3. Whether the trial court erred by admitting testimony that defendant kicked the family dog to death as impermissible and unduly prejudicial character evidence.
4. Whether the trial court erred in admitting expert testimony on intimate partner abuse, and whether the prosecutor committed reversible misconduct by eliciting testimony that violated in limine limits.
5. Whether defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to present certain evidence to undermine the prosecution’s case.
6. Whether the trial court improperly limited evidence of investigator bias and wrongly refused a defense instruction focusing on alleged bad-faith investigation.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.
- The court held the circumstantial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, constituted substantial evidence from which a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in admitting the victim’s fear statements as relevant state-of-mind evidence with limiting instructions.
- The court held the dog-killing testimony was admissible under Evidence Code sections 1101 and 352 as probative of violence within the relationship and not unduly prejudicial under the deferential review standard.
- The court upheld admission of intimate partner abuse expert testimony as assisting the jury’s evaluation of victim behavior; any claimed deviation from in limine limits did not warrant reversal and was not prejudicial.
- The court rejected ineffective assistance claims for failure to show deficient performance and prejudice.
- The court concluded the limitations on investigator-bias evidence and the refusal of a special defense instruction were within the trial court’s discretion and did not violate the right to present a defense.

## Legal Principles

- On appellate review for sufficiency of the evidence, the court views the record in the light most favorable to the judgment and asks whether substantial evidence supports the verdict.
- Circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to prove guilt and premeditation if it reasonably supports the jury’s findings.
- A victim’s out-of-court statements may be admissible to show the victim’s state of mind when relevant and not offered for the truth of asserted underlying facts; limiting instructions can reduce misuse.
- Evidence of prior acts may be admitted for a nonpropensity purpose under Evidence Code section 1101 and may be excluded only if undue prejudice substantially outweighs probative value under Evidence Code section 352; appellate review is deferential.
- Expert testimony on intimate partner abuse may be admitted to help jurors understand victim behavior within abusive relationships, subject to trial-court control of scope and prejudice.
- Ineffective assistance requires proof of objectively unreasonable performance and a reasonable probability of a different outcome absent counsel’s errors.
- Trial courts may limit cumulative or marginal bias evidence and may refuse pinpoint instructions when standard instructions adequately cover the governing law and the defense theory.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a decades-later first degree murder conviction based primarily on circumstantial proof, concluding the evidence was substantial and that the challenged evidentiary rulings, expert testimony, alleged misconduct, counsel-performance claims, and restrictions on bias evidence and special instructions did not amount to reversible error.


People v. Kovacich, 201 Cal. App. 4th 863, 133 Cal. Rptr. 3d 924 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)