California v. Winkler
Annotate this CaseDefendant Todd Winkler killed his third wife (the victim) by stabbing her in the neck, severing her jugular vein. She had been having an extramarital affair and was planning to divorce defendant. Defendant did not deny killing her, but claimed he did so in self-defense. A jury found defendant guilty of murder in the first degree and found true the enhancement allegation that defendant personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon in the commission of the murder. The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of 26 years to life. Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeal concluded the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of the 1999 death of defendant’s second wife under Evidence Code section 1101(b). The Georgia authorities where the incident took place determined the death was accidental. Before allowing the jury to hear this evidence, the trial court had a gatekeeping duty under Evidence Code section 403 (a) to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to establish a homicidal act by a preponderance of the evidence. In doing so, the trial court relied on evidence related to the charged offense as proof of the earlier homicidal act. Furthermore, the Court concluded that any probative value the uncharged act evidence had was substantially outweighed by the Evidence Code section 352 concerns of undue consumption of time and undue prejudice. However, given the strength of the admissible evidence, the Court of Appeal concluded the error was harmless. As to his asserted error regarding evidence related to the victim’s fear of him, the Court concluded defendant forfeited several of these contentions. And contrary to defendant’s assertion, he was not denied the constitutionally effective assistance of counsel for his attorney’s failure to object to the evidence. The Court also rejected defendant’s cumulative error argument. And there was substantial evidence of premeditation and deliberation to support his conviction of murder in the first degree. The abstract of judgment had to be corrected to reflect that the indeterminate sentence imposed was 25 years to life, and delete reference to the term of life without the possibility of parole.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.