Filed 6/14/23 P. v. Zavala CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ---- THE PEOPLE, C095823 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. S20CRF0083) v. EDGAR BRINGAS ZAVALA, Defendant and Appellant. A jury found defendant Edgar Bringas Zavala guilty of two counts of inflicting corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon a dating partner, and one count each of rape, false imprisonment, and making criminal threats. The jury also found true allegations that he used a deadly weapon in making those threats. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence that the victim gave a false name on a job application because the evidence would have injected the issue of the victim’s immigration status into the case. Defendant also contends the trial court’s ruling violated his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. The People contend defendant 1 forfeited his constitutional claim by failing to raise it in the trial court and, in any event, the trial court did not prejudicially err by excluding evidence of the victim giving a false name. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion or violate defendant’s constitutional right. We will affirm. I. BACKGROUND A. Direct Examination of Jane Doe Jane Doe met defendant while they worked at a Pizza Hut together. They eventually began dating, after which defendant became increasingly aggressive about checking Doe’s phone and preventing her from having contact with other men. Once, when Doe would not let defendant check her phone, he pulled Doe’s hair hard enough to rip some out of her scalp. Another time, he pushed her and insulted her. Defendant and Doe had been dating for about two months when they made plans to spend some time together at defendant’s mother’s house while his mother was out of town for a week. Doe lived with her cousin and his wife, Jackie, at the time, who would not have allowed her to stay with defendant alone, so she lied and told them she was travelling with defendant and his mother to meet his family in Modesto. Doe admitted using methamphetamine while staying with defendant so that they would have a good time. At first, Doe testified she had never used methamphetamine, but later admitted she had used methamphetamine once before. While Doe was staying with defendant, he used her phone to access her Facebook account and discovered that she had sent a “friend request” to a man. Defendant became angry, began questioning Doe about the man, and then began yelling at her because he thought she was interested in the man. This began a series of escalating abuse over several days. Doe described defendant slapping …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals