Olvera v. Giles
Appellant Cheri Olvera and respondent Brian Giles lived together from April 2003 to June 2008. When the relationship ended, Olvera sued Giles for breach of contract, seeking $10 million in damages, and for domestic violence, among other tort theories. Giles cross-complained for damages for domestic violence, for return of a diamond engagement ring he alleged was valued at almost $108,000 and for conversion of personal property.
After several days of trial, the jury returned a verdict awarding Giles the engagement ring and denying both parties all other relief. In so doing, the jury found that both Olvera and Giles "intentionally or recklessly" caused or attempted to cause bodily injury to each other, or to place the other "in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury," but that neither Giles's nor Olvera's actions or conduct caused the other "to suffer injury, damage, loss or harm."
Olvera does not challenge, at least directly, any of the jury's findings. Instead, she attacks a single evidentiary ruling of the trial court, contending the court erred when, pursuant to Evidence Code[1] section 352, it excluded evidence regarding the source of a surveillance video played in part for the jury concerning an alleged domestic violence incident captured on the video involving her and Giles that took place in 2006 in a bar in Phoenix.
According to Olvera, because witnesses called by Giles testified that Olvera previously had told them she had a copy of a video that, if necessary, she would use against Giles, Olvera contends she should have been allowed to testify that she received a copy of the video from Arizona prosecutors with whom she refused to cooperate, who had charged Giles with misdemeanor domestic violence arising from the 2006 bar incident. Olvera further contends that if this evidence had been admitted, it would have rebutted Giles's argument that Olvera possessed the video in order to get money from him and would have led to a contrary finding that she was in fact harmed by Giles's acts of domestic violence.
As we explain, we reject Olvera's contentions and affirm the judgment.
Comments on Olvera v. Giles