People v. Brown
California Court of Appeal
121 Cal. Rptr. 3d 828 (2011)
- Written by Haley Gintis, JD
Facts
In 1999, Eddie Brown (defendant) began dating Bridget Colmore. Colmore confided in friends and previous boyfriends that Brown had choked her and was jealous of her relationships with other men. In 2001, Colmore terminated the relationship. Brown began threatening to kill Colmore and her new boyfriend. On September 11, 2001, Colmore received a call from Brown while she was with her niece. Colmore became upset and went to Brown’s house. Before leaving, Colmore told her niece that she would be back shortly. Colmore never returned. Brown admitted to fatally strangling Colmore. The State of California (plaintiff) charged Brown with first-degree murder. The prosecution believed that Brown had strangled Colmore because she had terminated the relationship and began dating someone else. At Brown’s trial, the trial court allowed the prosecution to introduce evidence that Brown had committed prior acts of domestic violence against Colmore. The trial court also allowed four of Brown’s previous girlfriends to testify about the specific acts of domestic violence that Brown had committed against them. Brown was convicted. Brown appealed on the ground that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence Brown’s prior acts of domestic violence.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Poochigian, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 790,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
