(Super. Ct. No. SF117001A)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Nicholson , Acting P. J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
A jury found defendant Ignacio Martinez guilty of making criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422) and dissuading a witness from testifying (Pen. Code, § 361.1, subd. (c)(1)). The trial court found defendant had been convicted of a prior serious felony and had a prior strike conviction, and sentenced him to nine years in state prison.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion under Evidence Code section 352*fn1 in permitting the prosecution to introduce evidence of a prior incident of domestic violence involving the same victim. We affirm.
The trial court's ruling on the subject evidence was made in limine, prior to jury selection. Defendant did not renew his objections or move to strike the subject evidence on the ground it did not conform to the offer of proof at the time the evidence was introduced at trial.
Although the trial court's ruling in limine may preserve an objection to evidence for appeal, our review is limited to assessing whether the trial court abused its discretion in ruling the evidence was admissible based upon the showing made by the parties at the hearing on the motion in limine. (§ 353; People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, 189-190; People v. Berryman (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1048, 1070 [reviewing court "'focuses on the ruling itself and the record on which it was made. It does not look to subsequent matters . . . .'"].)*fn2 Accordingly we recite those facts proffered in connection with the prosecution's motion in limine, not those adduced at trial.
Defendant was charged with making criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422) and dissuading a witness from testifying (Pen. Code, § 361.1, subd. (c)(1)), both of which were alleged to have occurred on December 6, 2010. The prosecutor represented the nature of the threats in this case were as follows: "Allegedly . . . it's a boyfriend-girlfriend, they have several children in common, [in a] several-year relationship. On the night of the incident, the victim at the time alleges the defendant contacted her 26 times from a blocked number. Of the 26 times of the blocked number she picks up about three times, that's how she knows it's the defendant. He believes she's cheating on him. The first time[, he] tells me -- or [he] tells her 'I know you're cheating on me, tell me who he is, um, there'll be a black cloud that comes over you.' She says 'There's nobody,' hangs up.
"Picks up again several calls later, he says 'You better tell me, if I find out I'll shank him and I'll shank you.' [¶] . . . [¶]
". . . She hangs up again, says 'Stop calling me.'
"Picks up again, I believe the last threat is if he finds out who she is -- he is, he'll kill her [sic], and if the victim ...