Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...

Unless this incident can be traced to racial animosity, it has no relevance.
Appellant was allegedly involved in an altercation with an Asian inmate, and there
were no racial epitaphs spoken or other evidence of a racial motive as to the
incident in issue here. Therefore, it was mere speculation to attribute a racial
motive in this particular altercation to appellant. (See AOB at p. 194.)
Because Evidence Code section 352 requires a balancing of the probative
value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect, respondent's failure to address
the actual probative value of the evidence dooms his argument. Respondent's
conclusion that the evidence was necessary to rebut appellant's defense evidence
that he was not hostile to African-Americans is necessarily flawed because half of
the equation - the probative nature - was never analyzed.
Respondent argues that appellant was not prejudiced by this evidence
because he had been charged with killing people in a drive-by shooting, an act
more violent than the alleged assault. (RB at p. 129.) However, the fact that the
alleged crime was more egregious than the improper character evidence does not
negate the fact that a jury may be prejudiced by the evidence in question. The
jury's job was to determine whether appellant committed the murders.
Presumably, at the time the improper evidence was introduced, the jurors had not
made up their minds about the charged offense. The assault evidence created an
image of appellant as a violent racist. The inferences drawn by the jurors from
such evidence influenced the jurors to conclude that it was more likely that
appellant committed the murder than they would have been had the evidence not
been introduced. Therefore, the fact that the murder was more serious than the
character evidence did not negate the prejudicial impact ofthat evidence.
In conclusion, the erroneous introduction of this evidence was prejudicial t
appellant, thereby requiring a reversal of the judgment of conviction entered
below.
98