Opinion ID: 2630926
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admission of Letner's Statements Against Tobin As Adoptive Admissions (Tobin)

Text: Tobin contends the trial court abused its discretion by admitting against him the statement made by Letner to Officer Wightman, when the officer conducted the vehicle stop of Pontbriant's car, that Letner was taking [my] friend home. Tobin asserts, as he did in the trial court, that the statement was hearsay under section 1200 of the Evidence Code, [14] and that there was an insufficient foundation for admitting it under the exception applicable to adoptive admissions under Evidence Code section 1221. [15] As the prosecutor and the trial court observed at the trial, however, the statement was not hearsay, and therefore whether or not it constituted an adoptive admission under the statute is of no moment. Letner's statement that he was taking [my] friend home was not offered to demonstrate that Tobin adopted the truth of the matter asserted, but rather, because the statement was a lie, to demonstrate consciousness of guilt. This false statement was relevant because it was made (and the jury could infer its falsity from other evidence), and not because it was a true statement. Because the statement was not inadmissible under the hearsay rule, it was unnecessary to establish whether it fell within the adoptive-admission exception to the hearsay rule. (See, e.g., People v. Curl (2009) 46 Cal.4th 339, 362 [93 Cal.Rptr.3d 537, 207 P.3d 2] [the inconsistent-statement hearsay exception under Evid. Code, § 1202 does not apply to a statement admitted for the nonhearsay purpose of showing consciousness of guilt]; People v. Noguera (1992) 4 Cal.4th 599, 624-625 [15 Cal.Rptr.2d 400, 842 P.2d 1160].) The trial court did not err by overruling Tobin's objection. Although Tobin has failed to articulate the point adequately either in the trial court or on appeal, arguably the statement should have been admitted as evidence only of Letner's, and not Tobin's, consciousness of guilt. The trial court touched on the subject, noting that in its view, the statement's admissibility against Tobin was a question of fact, and the court offered to instruct concerning when somebody can be deemed to adopt or not adopt an admission like that if you want one. No such instruction was given during Officer Wightman's testimony or at the conclusion of the guilt phase. Even assuming Tobin did not forfeit the claim that the trial court erroneously failed to instruct the jury that the statement could be considered only as to Letner, we conclude that any possible error was harmless. Officer Wightman also testified that Tobin himself told Wightman they were taking Tobin home to the house on South Crenshaw where he resided with a woman named Jeanette, although it was established at trial that Tobin had not resided there for some time. Accordingly, the jury had before it similar evidence from Tobin himself revealing potential consciousness of guilt.