Estate of Manuel Jaminez Chum v. City of Los Angeles

Ninth Circuit

Estate of Manuel Jaminez Chum v. City of Los Angeles

585 F. App'x 435

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 15, 2014

Docket12-56748

StatusUnpublished

This text of 585 F. App'x 435 (Estate of Manuel Jaminez Chum v. City of Los Angeles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Estate of Manuel Jaminez Chum v. City of Los Angeles, 585 F. App'x 435 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

The Estate of Manuel Jaminez Chum appeals from the district court’s judgment upon a jury verdict in favor of the City of Los Angeles and LAPD Officer Frank Hernandez. Hernandez shot and killed Chum as he allegedly advanced holding a raised knife. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

First, Chum’s estate argues that the district court abused its discretion by admitting testimony that, before the police arrived, Chum grabbed a pregnant woman by the arm and wielded a knife as if he were going to stab her in the stomach. That testimony corroborated Hernandez’s account that (1) he arrived on the scene after a civilian told him that a man down the street was attempting to stab a woman with a knife, and (2) he observed Chum pulling a woman by the arm and holding a knife in his other hand. Because the challenged testimony made Hernandez’s account more probable, the testimony was relevant, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting it. See Boyd v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 576 F.3d 938, 943-45 (9th Cir.2009).

Second, Chum’s estate argues that the district court abused its discretion by admitting witness testimony that illegal swap meets were frequently held in the area where Chum was shot and that the area was congested with unpermitted vendors and their customers at the time of the shooting. The district court did not abuse its. discretion by admitting that testimony because counsel for Chum’s estate elicited testimony that the crowd was upset by the shooting, which opened the door to testimony that the crowd may have reacted angrily in response to Hernandez’s actions because the ticketing of unpermitted vendors and confiscation of illegal goods had strained relations between the police and the swap meet vendors and customers. See United States v. Helina, 549 F.2d 713, 719 (9th Cir.1977).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

The Estate of Manuel Jaminez Chum appeals from the district court’s judgment upon a jury verdict in favor of the City of Los Angeles and LAPD Officer Frank Hernandez. Hernandez shot and killed Chum as he allegedly advanced holding a raised knife. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

First, Chum’s estate argues that the district court abused its discretion by admitting testimony that, before the police arrived, Chum grabbed a pregnant woman by the arm and wielded a knife as if he were going to stab her in the stomach. That testimony corroborated Hernandez’s account that (1) he arrived on the scene after a civilian told him that a man down the street was attempting to stab a woman with a knife, and (2) he observed Chum pulling a woman by the arm and holding a knife in his other hand. Because the challenged testimony made Hernandez’s account more probable, the testimony was relevant, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting it. See Boyd v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 576 F.3d 938, 943-45 (9th Cir.2009).

Second, Chum’s estate argues that the district court abused its discretion by admitting witness testimony that illegal swap meets were frequently held in the area where Chum was shot and that the area was congested with unpermitted vendors and their customers at the time of the shooting. The district court did not abuse its. discretion by admitting that testimony because counsel for Chum’s estate elicited testimony that the crowd was upset by the shooting, which opened the door to testimony that the crowd may have reacted angrily in response to Hernandez’s actions because the ticketing of unpermitted vendors and confiscation of illegal goods had strained relations between the police and the swap meet vendors and customers. See United States v. Helina, 549 F.2d 713, 719 (9th Cir.1977).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

585 F. App'x 435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-manuel-jaminez-chum-v-city-of-los-angeles-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack