A California state appeals court has affirmed a trial court’s decision to admit evidence from a previous incident and convict a football player of felony battery in a case where he was found to have intentionally poked out the eye of another football player during a drill.
One of the trial court’s key rulings on appeal was whether an incident involving defendant Gregory Curoso while he was a member of the Santa Rosa Junior College football team was admissible. “There was a reasonable basis for the trial court concluding that the probative value of the evidence of the uncharged offenses outweighed any potential prejudice,” wrote the appeals court.
The incident occurred in 2002 during a football practice at the College of Marin. The defendant was participating in a drill on the defensive side of the ball, while the victim, Darren Nichols, was a running back. The offensive and defensive units were executing plays in the context of a no-tackle format. On one play, the defendant tackled the victim and rode him to the ground. He pushed his hand through the face mask and gouged the victim, causing him to lose sight in one of his eyes.
A jury found the defendant guilty of misdemeanor assault (Pen. Code, § 240), misdemeanor battery (Pen. Code, §§ 242, 243, subd. (a)), and felony battery involving the infliction of serious bodily injury (Pen. Code, §§ 242, 243, subd. (d)).
On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the prosecution to introduce evidence of other acts of aggression, which did not satisfy Evidence Code section 1101.
The appeals court noted several incidents at Santa Rosa that had been introduced into the record that, while they didn’t approach the severity of the instant incident, they were alarming in number and had a similar context.
“What is significant is that both occurred within the context of a football activity in which defendant was participating as a player,” wrote the court. “Both involved football activity on the field that led to defendant losing his temper and expressing that loss with violence directed at another person.”
The People v. Gregory Curoso; Ct. App. Calif., 1st App.Dist., Div 2; A109542; 2006 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 10417; 11/1706
