## Facts

- Isaias Sandoval and A.G. were married for 11 years, separated for about three, and later resumed living together with their two children.
- On the morning of September 21, 2006, Sandoval and A.G. argued about his unemployment; A.G. told him the relationship was not working and that he needed to move out.
- A.G. testified at trial that Sandoval grabbed her arms and pushed her; she said she threw herself to the ground to scare him into leaving.
- A.G. testified that Sandoval broke her cell phone when she tried to call police, and she then damaged it further.
- A.G. testified that she and Sandoval had intercourse that day that became consensual after reconciliation, describing it as “gentle,” though she initially did not want sex.
- Around noon, A.G. went to the apartment-complex office and called police.
- Shortly after the incident, A.G. told a responding officer that Sandoval hit her multiple times, threatened to kill her, raped her, and destroyed her phone to prevent her from calling police.
- During a sexual-assault examination, a nurse recorded A.G.’s report of physical attack, threats, and rape; medical information supported that she had been sexually assaulted.
- The prosecution introduced evidence of Sandoval’s prior domestic-violence conduct under California Evidence Code § 1109.
- Sandoval offered expert testimony from a psychology professor to explain “make-up sex” (sex as reconciliation after conflict) to support a consent theory; the trial court excluded it as within common experience and not helpful to deciding consent in this case.
- A jury convicted Sandoval of spousal rape by force, corporal injury to a spouse, felony false imprisonment, criminal threats, and misdemeanor damage to a wireless communication device; he received an aggregate six-year prison term.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding expert testimony about “make-up sex” under Evidence Code § 801.
2. Whether the jury instructions failed to require proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to each element of each charged offense.
3. Whether Evidence Code § 1109 (admitting prior domestic-violence acts to show propensity) violates due process.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting prior domestic-violence evidence under Evidence Code § 1109 and § 352.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment and sentence.
- The trial court acted within its discretion in excluding the proposed “make-up sex” expert testimony because it was not beyond common experience and would not assist the jury on the consent question presented.
- The instructions, read as a whole, adequately conveyed the prosecution’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, including as to the elements of the offenses.
- Evidence Code § 1109 was upheld as constitutional, and its use in this case did not deny due process.
- Admission of prior domestic-violence evidence was not an abuse of discretion where the trial court performed § 352 balancing, limited the evidence, and gave limiting instructions.

## Legal Principles

- Expert opinion is admissible only if it concerns a subject sufficiently beyond common experience that it would assist the trier of fact; trial courts have broad discretion under Evidence Code § 801.
- A trial court may exclude generalized relationship-dynamics testimony when the central issue is a fact-specific credibility and consent determination jurors can assess without specialized knowledge.
- Claims of instructional error are evaluated by reading the charge as a whole; standard reasonable-doubt instructions coupled with element instructions can satisfy due process without repeating “beyond a reasonable doubt” for each element.
- Evidence Code § 1109 permits admission of other domestic-violence acts to show propensity, subject to exclusion under Evidence Code § 352.
- Due process is not violated by admission of propensity evidence authorized by statute when the trial court retains discretion to exclude evidence whose prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its probative value and provides proper limiting instructions.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Sandoval’s convictions, holding that exclusion of “make-up sex” expert testimony was a proper discretionary ruling, the reasonable-doubt instructions were constitutionally sufficient when considered as a whole, and § 1109 domestic-violence propensity evidence is constitutional and was properly admitted after § 352 balancing and limiting instructions.


People v. Sandoval, 164 Cal. App. 4th 994 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)