Opinion ID: 2507854
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Exclusion of the BBC Video They Shoot Children, Don't They?

Text: Defendant contends next that the trial court violated his state and federal rights to due process, to present a defense, and to a reliable penalty determination by excluding a videotape of a BBC program, They Shoot Children, Don't They?, that he wished to present during the penalty phase. According to the defense offer of proof, the film detailed the life of a street child in Guatemala City, Guatemala, where defendant lived in the late 1980's, and the role of the local police in extorting, prostituting, torturing, and even murdering these children. The video was first discussed by the parties at a hearing while the guilt phase jury was deliberating. The court had already viewed the program. Defense counsel suggest[ed] to the court that the BBC program accurately depicted the life of street children in Guatemala City but offered no witness to authenticate the film or to opine on its fidelity to the life of street children in Guatemela City, nor did the defense offer any evidence of the temporal relationship between the events depicted in the film and the period during which defendant was in Guatemala. The prosecution therefore objected on relevance grounds. The court took the matter under submission, commenting that there was a strong possibility that the defendant will be able to play the tape for the jury as long as he ... tells us that he was threatened, that he was beaten and that he was perhaps raped, and all the other things that happened to those kids. Then maybe much if not all of the material on the tape would be relevant and appropriate. We will see what he says.... [¶] We can't tell until we hear from the defendant how he was abused. Two weeks later, after the jury had returned its guilt phase verdicts, both sides had presented their penalty phase evidence, both sides had rested, and the jury had been told they would hear arguments of counsel that day, defense counsel asked for a ruling on the BBC program. The court replied, [I]t's not before the court after evidence is concluded; however, the court does indicate a tentative ruling that it's not relevant and not connected up by any defense evidence. If you had offered it timely, I would not have allowed it. The court then denied defendant's request to reopen. The decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen, even to reopen the penalty phase of a capital prosecution, remains in the discretion of the trial court. ( People v. Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 42, 164 Cal.Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468.) In this case, the evidence the defense sought to offer at reopening was indisputably available during the trial. Indeed, defendant offered no excuse for failing to secure a ruling a prior to the close of evidence. The trial court was entitled to rely on defendant's lack of diligence in denying the motion to reopen. ( Ibid.; People v. Hawkins (1935) 3 Cal.2d 623, 624-625, 44 P.2d 559.) Moreover, as the trial court noted, the BBC program was not relevant and not connected up with any defense evidence. The defense offered no witnesses or other evidence to authenticate the video or to show that the events depicted therein were relevant to the time period during which defendant was in Guatemala. (Cf. People v. Mayfield (1996) 14 Cal.4th 668, 747, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 928 P.2d 485 [A video recording is authenticated by testimony or other evidence `that it accurately depicts what it purports to show'].) The video itself was also hearsay, since it was offered for its truth. ( People v. Kaurish, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 705, 276 Cal.Rptr. 788, 802 P.2d 278; see also Wilson v. Piper Aircraft Corp. (1978) 282 Or. 61, 577 P.2d 1322, 1329-1330 [documentary film on airplane crashes was inadmissible hearsay]; Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. Unocal Corp. (C.D.Cal.2003) 287 F.Supp.2d 1118, 1144-1145, fn. 160.) Even if these hurdles had been surmounted, defendant failed to demonstrate the relevance of the video to his own experience. Defendant never claimed any personal contact with the police death squads, and his belief that three of his friends were victims of the police was only speculation. To the extent the video depicted the general level of poverty in Guatemala, it was cumulative of the testimony of defendant and other witnesses. ( People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 465, 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 822, 827 P.2d 388.) The trial court therefore did not err in excluding it. ( People v. Nye (1969) 71 Cal.2d 356, 371-372, 78 Cal.Rptr. 467, 455 P.2d 395.) And since the video had no relevance to defendant's character, prior record, or the circumstances of his offense, it follows that no constitutional error occurred. ( Lockett v. Ohio (1978) 438 U.S. 586, 604, fn. 12, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (plur. opn. of Burger, C. J.); People v. Fauber (1992) 2 Cal.4th 792, 856, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 24, 831 P.2d 249; People v. Dyer (1988) 45 Cal.3d 26, 71, 246 Cal.Rptr. 209, 753 P.2d 1.)