Opinion ID: 1433861
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Testimony by Jim Wilson

Text: Defendant objected to testimony by Wilson concerning his actions after fleeing the scene of the shootings, arguing it was irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative. (Evid.Code, งง 351, 352.) The prosecutor countered that the evidence of the allnight flight through the mountains was relevant to the charge of attempted murder and on the question of premeditation and deliberation because Wilson's actions reflected his perceptions of defendant's murderous intentions and state of mind. The trial court admitted the evidence on that basis. We find no abuse of discretion in the ruling. Wilson's testimony was relevant primarily in that his description of events following his flight completed that portion of the overall narrative and explained when and how law enforcement initiated their investigation. A full rendition of the details also bolstered his credibility by demonstrating his ability to recollect accurately despite the trauma of the shooting. Nor was the testimony unduly prejudicial. Wilson's actions were a natural reaction to defendant's unprovoked assault. The testimony was short and relatively dispassionate, with no particular danger of evoking the jury's unwarranted sympathy. Moreover, since the jury eventually viewed the scene, they could reasonably have inferred the nature of Wilson's escape ordeal even if he had not testified. Defendant also challenges as inadmissible hearsay Wilson's testimony regarding Mincy's pleas for his life. Because he failed to make an appropriate objection, the issue is waived. (Evid.Code, ง 353, subd. (a).) In any event, the evidence was not hearsay. Mincy's words were not offered to prove the truth of the statements but the fact of the statements. (Evid.Code, ง 1200.) Nor were they unduly prejudicial. Because they reflected defendant's deliberate callousness, they were particularly relevant to his intent and the issue of premeditation. The `prejudice' referred to in Evidence Code section 352 applies to evidence which uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against defendant as an individual and which has very little effect on the issues. In applying section 352, `prejudicial' is not synonymous with `damaging.' ( People v. Yu (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 358, 377, 191 Cal.Rptr. 859.) Counsel thus was not incompetent for failing to object.