Conviction for kidnapping for rape and other crimes is affirmed where: 1) the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of defendant's earlier rape offense as the the risk of undue prejudice from its admission did not substantially outweigh its substantial probative value and the events were sufficiently similar to support an inference that defendant acted with the same intent on both occasions; 2) the court did not err in excluding expert testimony offered by the defense as the record supported a conclusion that the proposed testimony would have little probative value; and 3) the court did not err in its kidnapping instruction to the jury, and the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction.
Appeal from an order of the Santa Clara County Super. Ct.
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Filed: August 4, 2009
Opinion by Mihara, J., Elia, J., RUSHING, P.J.
Opinion by Mihara, J.
RUSHING, P.J., Dissenting
For Appellant: Julie Schumer, Under Appointment by the Sixth District Appellate Program.
For Respondent: Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General of the State of California, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Rene A. Chacon, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Linda M. Murphy, Deputy Attorney General