## Facts

- The parents and heirs of Ronald Goldman and the personal representatives of the estates of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson brought consolidated civil wrongful-death and survival actions against O.J. Simpson arising from the 1994 killings of Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson.
- A civil jury found Simpson committed the killings willfully and wrongfully, with oppression and malice.
- The jury awarded $8.5 million in compensatory damages to Goldman’s parents/heirs on the wrongful-death claim, and minor compensatory damages plus $12.5 million in punitive damages to each estate on the survival claims.
- At trial, plaintiffs introduced evidence of Simpson’s prior domestic violence against Nicole, including police-response testimony, testimony from a shelter director, and Nicole’s letters and diary entries describing abuse, fear, and intent to leave the relationship.
- The trial court instructed the jury that Nicole’s writings and statements were admitted only as circumstantial evidence of her state of mind.
- Simpson sought to introduce prior testimony of Detective Mark Fuhrman from other proceedings to challenge the investigation; the trial court excluded it.
- Plaintiffs offered expert testimony about Simpson’s financial condition, including his ability to profit from his name and likeness, to support punitive damages.
- After an incident of juror misconduct, the trial court removed the juror, seated an alternate, and denied Simpson’s motion for mistrial.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence of Simpson’s prior domestic violence toward Nicole was admissible to prove motive, intent, and identity rather than improper propensity.
2. Whether Nicole’s out-of-court statements, letters, and diary entries were admissible under hearsay exceptions, including the state-of-mind exception, and whether limiting instructions were sufficient.
3. Whether exclusion of Fuhrman’s prior testimony (and related defense evidence) was error under the rules governing hearsay and former testimony.
4. Whether juror misconduct required a mistrial despite the juror’s removal and substitution of an alternate.
5. Whether the compensatory and punitive damages awards were excessive as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgments in full.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting prior domestic violence evidence to show motive, intent, and identity, and in concluding its probative value was not substantially outweighed by undue prejudice.
- Nicole’s statements and writings were properly admitted for state-of-mind purposes with limiting instructions.
- The court upheld exclusion of Fuhrman’s prior testimony because the foundational requirements for former testimony were not satisfied, including lack of prior opportunity for cross-examination by the civil plaintiffs.
- The trial court’s response to juror misconduct (removal and substitution) cured potential prejudice; denial of mistrial was not error.
- The compensatory and punitive awards, including $12.5 million punitive awards to each estate on survival claims, were supported by the evidence and not excessive.

## Legal Principles

- Prior acts of domestic violence involving the same perpetrator and victim may be admissible for noncharacter purposes (including motive, intent, and identity) without requiring a distinctive modus operandi, subject to discretionary exclusion for undue prejudice.
- A victim’s statements and writings expressing fear, intent, or other mental state may be admitted under the state-of-mind hearsay exception when relevant to disputed issues; limiting instructions may confine the jury’s use to that purpose.
- Former testimony from other proceedings is inadmissible absent satisfaction of foundational requirements, including a prior opportunity for meaningful cross-examination by the party against whom it is offered (or a qualifying predecessor in interest).
- Juror misconduct does not automatically require mistrial; trial courts may cure prejudice through investigation and substitution, and appellate review is deferential to the trial court’s assessment.
- Punitive damages may be sustained where supported by reprehensibility of conduct and evidence of defendant’s ability to pay; expert testimony on earning capacity and monetization of name/likeness may be relevant to financial condition.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed the civil wrongful-death and survival judgments against Simpson, holding that the trial court’s evidentiary rulings (including prior domestic violence and state-of-mind evidence), its handling of juror misconduct, and the compensatory and punitive damages awards were legally sound.


Rufo v. Simpson, 86 Cal. App. 4th 573 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)