Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 22STCV00661, Date: 2025-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV00661    Hearing Date: February 6, 2025    Dept: 47

CASE:                         Maritza Padilla, individually and as Successor in Interest to Leonel Chavez, et al. v. State of California

CASE NO.:                 22STCV00661

TENATIVE RULINGS ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1, seeking an order barring description of the shooting as a “murder,” “execution,” or act taken in “cold blood.”

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       TENTATIVE RULING:  GRANTED IN PART, as to the use of the words, “executed,” “execution,” and “in cold blood,” but DENIED IN PART, as to the use of “murder.” 

Plaintiffs in this action are contending that the officer did in fact engage in the crime of murder but in this civil context.  In response, Defendants contend the homicide was justifiable because the use of force was reasonably necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.  While this standard is part of Plaintiff’s burden in this case, in a criminal context, it is a defense to charges of murder and lesser included offenses.  (CALCRIM 507.)  If Plaintiffs succeed in their claims, they will have shown Defendant Officer Castenada’s conduct to be an unjustified homicide, or a species of murder.  The other words that Defendants seek to prohibit are properly excluded because they are inaccurate and inflammatory. 

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 2, seeking to exclude evidence discovered after-the-fact that Defendant had no weapon.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    TENTATIVE RULING: GRANTED.

Based on the evidence discussed in the parties’ briefs, the later discovery that there was no weapon appears to be irrelevant to the resolution of the key determination to be made by the jury, that is, whether the officer’s conduct was reasonable “based on the totality of the circumstances known to or perceived by the officer at the time, rather than with the benefit of hindsight.”  (Penal Code § 835a.)  The evidence discussed includes that Officer Castaneda was told by witnesses that Chavez was acting like he had a weapon, that the officer was unable to verify whether Chavez had a weapon through a pat-down, and that he did not see any weapons in Chavez’s hands.  The discovery of the weapon after-the-fact would not shed any light on the credibility of the facts on which Castaneda relied so it would not be admissible.  If Castaneda had testified he saw a bulge in Chavez’s pocket or pants, the absence of a gun, even though found after the fact, would likely be relevant to challenge the credibility of his statement.  If there was nothing found that caused the bulge, then the testimony is potentially suspect, but that is not the situation here.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 3, seeking to exclude evidence of Officer Castaneda’s initial detention of Chavez as evidence of liability.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    TENTATIVE RULING: GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Plaintiff may not argument or offer evidence that Officer Castaneda lacked authority to temporarily detain Chavez, because the absence of a triable fact on this issue was the basis for the Court’s ruling in favor of Defendants on their motion for summary adjudication.  On the other hand, all actions taken or not taken by Officer Castaneda are relevant and admissible to prove his negligence and/or use of unreasonable force under the totality of the circumstances standard.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 4, seeking to exclude autopsy and scene photos of the decedent.  

TENTATIVE RULING: GRANTED, as it appears to be unopposed.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 5, seeking to exclude evidence of predeath pain and suffering.  

TENTATIVE RULING: GRANTED.

The Court concurs with Defendants that the pain and suffering suffered by a gunshot victim in the 10-15 minutes between the shooting and death is a matter beyond lay experience and knowledge.  This is especially true where, as here, the video does not over evidence of the decedent’s pre-death pain and suffering.  Plaintiff cannot rely on Defendant’s designated expert, Dr. Vilke, to provide such expert testimony because he was not designated by Defendants to form or express such an opinion.  Further, testimony about the decedent’s pain and suffering appears to be outside the expertise and job duties of the non-retained expert and medical examiner, Dr. Hunt. 

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 6, seeking to exclude evidence or argument that Chavez was suffering from a mental or emotional condition, disorder or disability at the time of his death.     

TENTATIVE RULING:  GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Plaintiff is not bound by her discovery answers but she can be impeached by them if they are contrary to her testimony at trial.  Plaintiff cannot offer argument about a “mental breakdown” or “psychological condition” at trial unless there is no evidence to support such an argument. Further, there is no evidence that Officer Castaneda had any information about any pre-existing psychological condition or mental breakdown experienced by Chavez.  That said, Plaintiff may offer evidence about the severity of the car accident, the serious damage to Chavez’s car, and Officer Castaneda’s knowledge of these facts, and make arguments that this evidence supports inference that Chavez’s emotional stability would like have been affected by the recent serious car accident and that Officer Castaneda should have taken that into account in dealing with Chavez and evaluating his conduct.