P. v. Woods

Filed 2/15/06 P. v. Woods CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

John S. Fisher, Judge. Reversed.

Katharine Eileen Greenebaum, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Ana R. Duarte, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Thomas C. Hsieh, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Following a jury trial, appellant Darren Woods was convicted of one count of arson (Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (d)) and one count of residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459.)[1] The trial court imposed sentences of six years on the burglary count and two years on the arson count, to run concurrently.[2] This appeal is from the judgment. Finding prejudicial error in the exclusion of the 1989 prior convictions of the person whose apartment was burned in the arson, we shall reverse the judgment.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND STATEMENT OF FACTS

The bed, armoire and nightstand in the bedroom belonging to MN, with whom appellant had had a relationship, was set afire sometime between 11 and 11:30 a.m. on March 1, 2004.[3] No more than five minutes before the fire alarm went off, a neighbor, Kevin Woods, heard a door shut or slam and saw appellant walking away from Melinda's apartment carrying a red and white paper shopping bag with handles.[4] Based on the sounds of footsteps he heard, Kevin figured appellant was coming down the stairs behind him and was going out the front door of the building, not via the elevator to the garage. Kevin then went out to eat, not having told anyone who he had seen, and was called about 10 or 15 minutes later by the manager.

M**, Melinda's cousin and roommate, stayed in the apartment the night before the fire, slept late with her boyfriend, and went out for breakfast about 11 a.m. Mxx did not see appellant or his car, which she knew well, when she left for breakfast.[5]

Only days before, on Friday, February 27, appellant bought blouses and a pair of pants for Melinda at Macy's, which had a red and white shopping bag. That bag, as well as blouses and slacks appellant had bought her, were missing from the apartment following the fire.[6]

The firehouse was a block away from the apartment building. At 11:26 a.m., the fire station received a call that an alarm had been activated, and the firefighters responded very quickly. According to the firefighters, neither smoke nor flames were showing when they arrived at the building.[7] When they got to the third floor, water was coming from apartment 303. The apartment, which was unlocked, was smoky. The fire sprinklers put out the fire and everything was wet, but there were no flames. Three different fires had been set in the bedroom, one in a drawer of the armoire, one in a drawer of the nightstand, and one on the side of the bed where Melinda testified she slept. The armoire drawer contained primarily lingerie; the nightstand drawer contained primarily photographs of appellant and Melinda together.

A container with lighter fluid was on the bed. A key to both the deadbolt locks on the front door of the apartment was found on the floor just outside the bedroom,[8] and a can containing a light petroleum product was found on the bed. No fingerprints were retrieved from either. The front door of the apartment was unlocked, but the lock mechanism on the closed bedroom door had been forced. The expert on origin of fires testified that it had to have been deliberately set.

Appellant and Melinda had an on-again off-again relationship for almost five years. He gave her substantial cash and checks and bought her many gifts. They took trips together, spent several days a week together, but he only occasionally spent the night. She discovered that appellant was married to and living with a woman with whom he had fathered a child, but still dated him. She dated other men while she was dating appellant, who knew of her interest in other men. Melinda and appellant differed regarding his reaction to her other relationships. The prosecution theory was that Melinda finally broke up with appellant, who then set fire to particular parts of her bedroom and took some of the clothes gifts he had bought for her a few days before.

In an interview on March 30, 2004, appellant told the arson investigator that Melinda, not he, wanted more from the relationship and â€