Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jordan Adrian Salkin was convicted of attempted murder and domestic violence battery after his girlfriend and business partner, A.F., was found in their home in 2017 with catastrophic head injuries. Salkin called 911 and falsely claimed A.F. had slipped and hit her head while they were 'messing around.' Instead of following the operator's direction to maintain pressure on her bleeding head, he hid testosterone supplements in an upstairs gun safe. Police found A.F. with fluttering eyes and a two-foot pool of blood around her head. She suffered a severe traumatic brain injury requiring a craniectomy and lobectomy, multiple skull and other fractures, and has remained comatose since 2017.
While released on bail in 2020, Salkin threatened a different romantic partner, S.S., at her home, screaming that he would kill her and her nine-year-old son with his shotgun. The trial court granted the prosecution's motion in limine to admit the 2020 threat, finding it 'definitely more probative than prejudicial under a 352 analysis' and qualifying as domestic violence. The court explained the conduct did not have to be 'on all fours' with the charged crime; it only needed to show a propensity to commit domestic violence.
At trial, Salkin testified that A.F. attacked him and that she fell onto a kitchen counter. Competing medical experts disagreed about whether her injuries were typical of a ground-level fall. The jury was instructed under CALCRIM No. 852A on uncharged domestic violence evidence, convicted Salkin on both counts, found true a great bodily injury enhancement, and the court sentenced him to 11 years in prison.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal upheld admission of the 2020 incident under Evidence Code section 1109, which allows propensity evidence in domestic violence cases unless barred by section 352. The court found the trial court reasonably balanced probative value against the four undue-prejudice factors. The 2020 conduct was highly probative because it was similar in character to the charged crime: in both 2017 and 2020, Salkin got angry with a live-in girlfriend who was also his business partner, attempting to kill A.F. and threatening to kill S.S. Similar prior offenses are 'uniquely probative' in domestic violence cases because of their typically repetitive nature.
The court found the risk of undue prejudice did not outweigh that probative value. The evidence was not inflammatory because S.S. suffered no physical injury; it posed no confusion because the incidents involved separate victims, witnesses, places, and times; it was not remote, coming only three years later; and it consumed little time—99 pages of a transcript exceeding 1,000 pages. The court rejected the argument that the jury was invited to collapse propensity into specific intent, noting the jury is presumed to have followed the CALCRIM No. 852A limiting instruction, which Salkin conceded was legally correct.
On intent to kill, the court found substantial evidence under the rational-trier-of-fact standard: Salkin's escalating anger toward A.F., the catastrophic injuries to an extremely vulnerable area of her body that were not typical of a ground-level fall, and his consciousness of guilt—false statements to the 911 operator and police, hiding the testosterone supplements instead of helping A.F., and placing broken ceramic and sunglasses in a shopping bag. The judgment was affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- Evidence of the uncharged 2020 domestic violence threat was admissible under Evidence Code section 1109, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion under section 352.
- Uncharged domestic violence need not be identical to the charged crime; broad similarities can make it highly probative.
- A legally correct CALCRIM No. 852A limiting instruction is presumed to prevent misuse of propensity evidence as proof of specific intent to kill.
- Substantial evidence of intent to kill may rest on escalating anger, severe injury evidence, and consciousness of guilt.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the attempted murder and domestic violence battery convictions and the great bodily injury enhancement.
Why It Matters
This unpublished decision illustrates the deference owed to section 352 balancing in domestic violence propensity cases under section 1109, and shows how appellate courts assemble substantial evidence of intent to kill from the defendant's conduct, the severity of the victim's injuries, and post-offense concealment.