P. v. Koklich
Filed 5/1/06 P. v. Koklich CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 FIVE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRUCE DAVID KOKLICH, Defendant and Appellant. | B174314 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA069394) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Philip Hickok, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Offices of Dennis A. Fischer, Dennis A. Fischer, John M. Bishop, and Steven Graff Levine, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Mary Sanchez, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Stephanie A. Miyoshi, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Jana Carpenter Koklich (Koklich) disappeared the weekend of August 17, 2001. Koklich was never seen or heard from again, and her body was never found. A jury convicted defendant and appellant Bruce David Koklich (defendant), Koklich's husband, of the second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)[1]) of Koklich.[2] The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for 15 years to life.
On appeal, defendant contends there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction; the trial court erred in admitting evidence of uncharged sexual misconduct by defendant following Koklich's disappearance and apparent death; the trial court erred in ruling that the prosecution could rebut proposed evidence of the absence of arguing, fighting, or domestic abuse in the Koklich marriage with evidence of defendant's acts of marital infidelity; the trial court erred in admitting evidence concerning defendant's demeanor in reacting to Koklich's disappearance; and the prosecutors engaged in misconduct by misstating the record and ignoring the trial court's rulings. We affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
Koklich and defendant had been married for 11 years when Koklich disappeared in August 2001. At the time, Koklich and defendant operated Remax College Park, a real estate business. They also operated a software development company they started in 1997 called â€
