People v. Copeland

1

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DENMARK OKEYA COPELAND, Defendant and Appellant.

H050451

California Court of Appeals, Sixth District

February 28, 2024

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

(Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. B2102415)

Greenwood, P. J.

Denmark Okeya Copeland appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of criminal offenses based on two domestic violence incidents. On appeal, Copeland argues that the trial court abused its discretion by permitting the prosecution to introduce evidence of his prior robbery conviction in its rebuttal case. He additionally contends that the trial court erred when it instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 850 regarding the use of expert testimony related to intimate partner battering. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

I. Background

A. Procedural History

The Santa Clara County District Attorney charged Copeland in a first amended information with two counts of inflicting corporal injury on a spouse (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)^[1]; counts 1 and 2); one count of battery on a spouse or cohabitant (§ 243, subd. (e)(1); count 3); and one count of malicious destruction of a wireless device (§ 591.5; count 4). The first amended information also alleged that Copeland personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim, and that he had suffered a prior strike under section 1170.12, subdivision (b)(1).

A jury found Copeland guilty of counts 2 and 3, found him not guilty of counts 1 and 4, and found not true the great bodily injury enhancement as to count 2. The court found the section 1170.12 prior strike allegation to be true.

At sentencing, the court granted Copeland's motion under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, and struck his prior strike conviction. The court sentenced Copeland to the midterm of three years for the domestic violence conviction (count 2), and a concurrent term of 240 days on the misdemeanor battery of a spouse or cohabitant count (count 3), which the court deemed already served. Copeland filed a timely notice of appeal.

B. Facts^[2]

K.W. had been in a dating relationship with Copeland on and off for about three years at the time of trial. They talked about having a future together, getting married, raising K.W.'s children, and having additional children together.

1. The February 15, 2021 Incident^[3]

On February 15, 2021, K.W. lived in San Jose in an apartment with her two young children. Copeland stayed at the apartment, but his name was not on the lease. That evening at around 11 or 12 p.m., he started an argument with K.W. Copeland told her that he had another woman, and K.W. said, "that's good, you go do that," and pointed to the door.

Copeland responded by getting angry and throwing things and cursing at K.W. He pulled her by the hair, then he took her phone from her. K.W. asked Copeland to give her the phone so she could call her mother, but he would not give it back to her. K.W. would have called the police at this point if she had had access to her phone.

S.D., the apartment manager at the complex, heard people yelling loudly as she walked through the courtyard. She heard a male voice demanding his cell phone. She then heard K.W. say "stop" and "help." Through the window, S.D. saw Copeland throw K.W. against the wall and then hit her. K.W. yelled out to S.D. to call the police.

As S.D. was on the phone with the 911 dispatcher, Copeland and K.W. came out of the apartment, and Copeland continued to yell and scream at K.W. K.W. walked toward S.D., trying to get away from Copeland. Copeland stood in front of S.D. as she tried to speak to the dispatcher. S.D. told Copeland that he needed to leave the property, but he refused to do so. K.W. was extremely upset and shaking.

K.W. walked away and out of the view of S.D. The police arrived as Copeland was exiting the property.

About two weeks after this incident, K.W. and Copeland got back together. K.W. reconciled with Copeland because she still loved him, and because he told her that he had been wrong to put his hands on her.

2. The October 14, 2021 Incident^[4]

On October 14, 2021, K.W. was living in an apartment in Sunnyvale, and Copeland was spending the night there. Copeland had been out late with friends that night, and came home smelling of alcohol. At about 2:00 a.m., Copeland's phone rang, and K.W. answered it. The call was from a woman that K.W. did not know. She told K.W. that she might be pregnant by Copeland. K.W. asked the woman on the phone if she wanted to speak to Copeland. When the woman said she did, K.W. woke up Copeland and told him that his girlfriend wanted to talk to him. When Copeland said that he did not have a girlfriend, K.W. asked the woman her name, which K.W. then told him.

K.W. then went downstairs. Copeland told her, "Bring me my phone before I start breaking shit." At some point, K.W. got a knife from the kitchen, and held it in her sleeve. She felt that she needed the knife for her safety. K.W. never swung the knife at Copeland or stabbed him with it.

When K.W. returned the phone to Copeland, he started yelling that she was crazy. She told him that he needed to get out of her house. That is when Copeland became violent with her. Copeland grabbed the knife from her and cut himself in the process. He then started beating her up by hitting her on the face, choking her by pulling on the collar of her hooded sweatshirt, and throwing her on the floor. Copeland continued to choke her when she was on the ground. She told him that she could not breathe, and then she passed out.

Afterward, K.W. regained consciousness and called her friend, L.P., who lives in Georgia. K.W. called L.P. rather than the police because Copeland was standing over her. L.P. was on the phone with K.W. for about 20 to 30 minutes. L.P. heard Copeland yelling at K.W., and at one point during the call she heard K.W. say to Copeland that he was choking her and she could not breathe. After this, K.W. got back on the phone and told L.P. that Copeland was strangling her and trying to kill her.

L.P. hung up and called K.W.'s mother, and K.W.'s mother called the police. The police dispatcher called K.W., and in that call K.W. lied to the dispatcher and stated that Copeland had left the apartment and that the argument had not been physical. She did that because he was in the room with her at the time.

When the Sunnyvale police responded to the domestic violence call, K.W. whispered to the officers and she appeared to be frightened. Officer Jin Mo Kim saw blood stains around the rim of K.W.'s hooded sweatshirt and on her sweatpants. He also observed bruising around her neck.

K.W.'s mother visited her daughter the next day and saw that she had a black eye and bruises all around her neck. The jury was shown a photograph of K.W.'s face with the black eye, which K.W. stated lasted for three to four weeks.

An investigator from the District Attorney's office interviewed K.W. on June 1, 2022. K.W. told the investigator that during the October 14 incident she felt like she was going to pass out from being strangled. She said she felt like her feet were shutting down, and she could feel Copeland's body weight on her.

3. Expert Testimony on Intimate Partner Battering

Expert witness Richard Ferry testified for the prosecution on intimate partner violence. Ferry is a licensed marriage and family therapist who works with both perpetrators and victims of intimate partner violence.

Ferry provided "jury education testimony" in this case. He did not interview the alleged victim or the defendant, did not read the police report, and had no knowledge of the facts of the case. He described the purpose of his expert testimony as providing the jury with information about the way people who are touched by domestic violence manage their reactions, emotions, and circumstances.

Ferry stated that victims of domestic violence may react differently depending on the setting and how much time has passed since the abuse. For example, some victims cope by shutting down their reactions, and present themselves with a flat affect. Domestic violence victims may engage in paradoxical behavior, meaning that to the outsider the conduct does not make sense in light of the situation the victim is in. An example of this is when someone who has been assaulted returns to her abuser, or refuses to cooperate with the prosecution. The victim sometimes returns to the abuser because she has a reservoir of tender feelings for him, or because she fears that she cannot support herself and her children without him.

Ferry explained that the term "cycle of violence" refers to the interpersonal atmosphere between the victim and the abuser, composed of three phases: the tension- building phase, the acute violence phase, and the contrition phase. Ferry also testified that strangulation is one of the most effective means of exercising control over a partner.

4. Defense

M.R. had been a close friend of Copeland's for about 10 years. He had been around Copeland's girlfriend in the past few years, but did not know her name. One evening about one to two years before the trial, M.R. was hanging out in downtown Redwood City with Copeland, his girlfriend, and a large group of friends. M.R. saw Copeland's girlfriend tug on his sleeve and collar, scratch him, and slap him. It appeared to M.R. that the girlfriend did this because she was trying to make Copeland go home. Copeland reacted by trying to avoid her and distancing himself from her.

5. Rebuttal

The parties stipulated that on September 6, 2014, Copeland was convicted of robbery (§ 212.5, subd. (c)), in San Mateo County. Under California law, robbery is considered a crime of violence.

II. Analysis

A. Admission of Copeland's Robbery...