## Facts

- Police observed Jaleh Wilkinson’s car cross the center line, swerve, and strike a parked car; she failed a field sobriety test and was arrested for suspected DUI.
- At the police station, Wilkinson acted uncooperatively and combatively with custodial officers.
- A custodial officer testified Wilkinson grabbed his arm and left a welt.
- Wilkinson testified she drank three alcoholic drinks over about three hours, did not feel intoxicated, and claimed she must have been involuntarily drugged; a toxicologist opined she appeared under the influence of a “date-rape drug.”
- The prosecution charged, among other counts, felony battery on a custodial officer (Penal Code § 243.1) and misdemeanor DUI and hit-and-run (Veh. Code §§ 23152(a), 20002(a)).
- A jury convicted Wilkinson of felony battery and the DUI-related counts; the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed her on probation with a 180-day jail condition.
- The trial court excluded defense polygraph evidence under Evidence Code § 351.1 and declined to conduct a Kelly/Frye reliability hearing.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the felony battery conviction on equal protection grounds and for failure to hold a Kelly/Frye hearing; the California Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether Penal Code § 243.1 violates equal protection because overlapping battery statutes allow similar or less serious conduct to be punished more severely, effectively leaving punishment to prosecutorial choice.
2. Whether excluding defense polygraph evidence under Evidence Code § 351.1 without a Kelly/Frye hearing violated evidentiary rules or due process (right to present a defense).

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and reinstated the felony battery conviction.
- The Court held the overlapping battery statutes, including Penal Code § 243.1, do not violate equal protection under rational-basis review.
- The Court held Evidence Code § 351.1 categorically bars polygraph evidence absent stipulation, so the trial court properly excluded the evidence and properly declined to hold a Kelly/Frye hearing.
- The Court concluded the statutory exclusion of polygraph evidence did not violate due process.

## Legal Principles

- When a single act violates more than one criminal statute, prosecutors may charge under any applicable statute; overlap and differing penalties do not alone establish an equal protection violation.
- Penal classifications not involving a suspect class or a fundamental right are reviewed for a rational basis; the Legislature may draw penalty lines without precise uniformity.
- The Legislature may rationally treat battery on custodial officers as a straight felony based on the risks and security needs of custodial settings.
- Equal protection is not violated by charging discretion absent a showing of arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement against a protected class.
- Evidence Code § 351.1 imposes a categorical exclusion of polygraph evidence in criminal proceedings absent stipulation, making a Kelly/Frye reliability hearing unnecessary.
- The constitutional right to present a defense does not require admission of evidence excluded by reasonable, generally applicable evidentiary rules.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Penal Code § 243.1 against an equal protection challenge despite overlapping battery statutes and enforced Evidence Code § 351.1’s categorical exclusion of polygraph evidence, concluding that neither prosecutorial charging discretion nor the statutory evidentiary bar violated constitutional guarantees.


People v. Wilkinson, 33 Cal. 4th 821, 94 P.3d 551 (Cal. 2004)