Opinion ID: 2607459
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Jeff's Testimony

Text: (15a) Defendant argues that restrictions on defense cross-examination of Kimele's husband, Jeff, violated rules governing admission of third-party culpability evidence. We disagree. Before trial, the prosecution moved in limine to prevent Jeff from being asked about his remarriage and personal life after the crimes. The matter was argued at least twice before Jeff was called to the stand and again immediately before his cross-examination began. On each occasion, defendant offered to introduce circumstantial evidence of Jeff's motive to kill Kimele, e.g., that he received $40,000 in life insurance benefits, bought a house, traveled abroad at some point after her death, and remarried over a year later. Defendant insisted this evidence raised a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt when considered in light of Jeff's presence and bizarre behavior at the crime scene and the apparent lack of corroboration of his whereabouts between 2:15 and 4 p.m., when the victims most likely died. The prosecutor sought to exclude the evidence under Evidence Code section 352, suggesting it would trigger extensive rebuttal testimony. The court concluded that the proffered motive evidence was irrelevant and granted the prosecution's motion to exclude it. Defendant argues that the court's ruling violated People v. Hall (1986) 41 Cal.3d 826 [226 Cal. Rptr. 112, 718 P.2d 99] and various federal constitutional guarantees (due process, confrontation of witnesses, presentation of a defense, and reliable death judgment). Hall refused to impose a distinct and elevated standard of admissibility on defense evidence of a third party's guilt of the charged crimes, and said such evidence need only be capable of raising a reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt. ( Id., at p. 833.) Hall made clear, however, that commonsense relevance limits apply. (16) [E]vidence of mere motive or opportunity to commit the crime in another person, without more, will not suffice to raise a reasonable doubt about a defendant's guilt: there must be direct or circumstantial evidence linking the third person to the actual perpetration of the crime. ( Ibid., italics added.) (15b) Here, the court correctly found the proffered evidence raised no reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt as a matter of law. Nothing in the purported motive evidence distinguishes Jeff from any other person who is named as a beneficiary under a working spouse's life insurance policy or who makes a fresh start after a painful loss. Jeff's behavior upon discovering Catherine's dead body  frantically searching for Kimele throughout the building and calling people who might know her whereabouts  is not remarkable in the slightest degree. And, contrary to defendant's implication, the lack of corroboration that Jeff was not present at the time of the crimes is not evidence that he was present. Absent any physical or other evidence linking Jeff to actual perpetration of the murders, the alleged third party evidence was irrelevant. There was no error under state or federal law.