Opinion ID: 1359265
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Murder of Teheran Jefferson

Text: As previously mentioned (see pt. I.A.3., ante ), the prosecution introduced evidence of the murder of Teheran Jefferson, which occurred around the time of the Hassan and Taylor crimes. A summary of that evidence follows: Los Angeles Police Officer Billy Leader arrived at the scene of a homicide at 862 West 126th Street, Los Angeles. He found the victim, Teheran Jefferson, with his upper torso on the bed, and his knees and feet on the floor. Jefferson's hands were tied behind his back, a pillow was over his head, and his mouth was gagged with a T-shirt. He had been shot in the back of the head. The wound was a contact wound, meaning that the killer had placed a gun against Jefferson's head and pulled the trigger. In the kitchen was a box containing marijuana debris and some plastic baggies. In Officer Leader's expert opinion, the owner of the marijuana possessed it for the purpose of sale. Sandra Taylor, Jefferson's ex-girlfriend, testified that Jefferson sold marijuana. The bullet that killed Jefferson was found under his body. A prosecution ballistics expert testified that the bullet was either of a .38- or .357-caliber, and had rifling characteristics, which were produced by the gun that fired it, and which the expert described as six lands and grooves and a left hand twist. It was thus similar to the bullet that killed Bobby Hassan, which was a .357-caliber bullet, bearing six lands and grooves and a left-hand twist. The expert was unable to say, however, that the two bullets were fired by the same gun. He also explained that Colt revolvers generally produced six lands and grooves with a left-hand twist. The prosecution introduced no evidence directly connecting either defendant in this case with Jefferson's murder. Both defendants contend that the trial court should have excluded evidence of the Jefferson murder because (1) it tended to show a disposition to commit criminal acts, and thus its admission violated Evidence Code section 1101; (2) its probative value was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect, in violation of Evidence Code section 352; and (3) admission of the evidence violated defendants' right to due process of law. Before the prosecutor's opening statement, counsel for defendant Champion objected to the evidence of Jefferson's murder, without, however, stating grounds for the objection. When the trial court asked for the People's position on this issue, the prosecution responded with a lengthy offer of proof, and explained that the evidence was admissible to show an ongoing conspiracy by defendants to murder drug dealers in their neighborhood, because the crimes exhibited a similar modus operandi, and because the Jefferson murder showed that in this case defendants harbored the intent to kill Bobby and Eric Hassan and (as to defendant Ross) Michael Taylor. Counsel for defendant Ross then pointed out that the prosecutor had sent the defense attorneys a letter informing them that he intended to use the evidence of the Jefferson murder in aggravation at the penalty phase of the trial, and counsel for Ross argued that this letter misled the defense into believing that the prosecutor would not use this evidence at the guilt phase of trial. The prosecutor responded that he had sent defense counsel a subsequent letter stating his intent to use the evidence of the Jefferson murder at the guilt phase. The trial court then ruled that the evidence would be admitted. After the parties discussed the admissibility of other, unrelated evidence, counsel for defendant Ross noted for the record that he did not recall receiving the subsequent letter mentioned by the prosecutor. Defense counsel made no further objection to the admission of the evidence of the Jefferson murder until the conclusion of the prosecution's case, when the parties were discussing the admissibility of the prosecution's exhibits. At that time, counsel for defendant Champion objected to the admission of all of the exhibits relating to the murder of Jefferson (consisting of the bullet that killed Jefferson, and photographs of the victim and the scene of the crime), because of the total irrelevance of the Teheran Jefferson case. Counsel for defendant Ross said that he had the same objection to the exhibits and to the testimony concerning Teheran Jefferson because it has no connection with this case at all, no similarity. The court overruled the defense objections. (9) Generally, reviewing courts will not consider a challenge to the admissibility of evidence absent `a specific and timely objection in the trial court on the ground sought to be urged on appeal.' ( People v. Raley (1992) 2 Cal.4th 870, 892 [8 Cal. Rptr.2d 678, 830 P.2d 712]; Evid. Code, § 353, subd. (a).) In this case, defendants never asserted at trial that admission of the evidence of Jefferson's killing violated Evidence Code sections 352 or 1101, or their right to due process of law, the grounds asserted on this appeal. We therefore will not consider these claims on appeal. ( People v. Wader, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 635.) (10) Defendants also assert that the evidence of the Jefferson killing should have been excluded because it was irrelevant. Although counsel registered a timely objection to the admission of the exhibits relating to Jefferson's death, we question whether their objection to the testimony regarding his death was timely, because it was not made until long after the witnesses had testified. Assuming for the sake of argument that we may consider the issue, we find any error in admitting the evidence of Jefferson's death to be harmless. As defendants themselves point out, the prosecution offered no evidence directly connecting defendants to Jefferson's death. Thus, it seems unlikely that the jury gave the evidence substantial weight. We conclude there is no reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different if the trial court had excluded the evidence of Jefferson's murder. ( People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [299 P.2d 243].) Defendants accuse the prosecutor of misconduct, asserting that his offer of proof, setting forth the evidence he intended to introduce regarding Jefferson's murder, misled the trial court into believing that the prosecution would be able to link the killing of Jefferson to defendants. We have examined the offer of proof and find no inaccuracies. In any event, defendants made no objection, after the jury heard the evidence relating to Jefferson's death, on the ground that the evidence was inconsistent with the prosecutor's offer of proof. They thus have not preserved the right to raise the issue on appeal. ( People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 27 [164 Cal. Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468].)