Opinion ID: 2584893
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Assertedly Erroneous Admission of Videotape of America's Most Wanted Television Show

Text: The disappearance and murder of Jamie Bowie was featured several times on the nationally broadcast television program America's Most Wanted, including one segment that was broadcast after defendant and Hilda Riggs were arrested and charged with Bowie's murder and Hilda had decided to cooperate with the authorities. Defendant moved before trial to exclude these broadcasts from being shown to the jury during the trial. The trial court deferred ruling on the motion at that time. When the prosecution gave notice that it intended to show a portion of an episode during opening statements of the guilt phase of the trial, however, the trial court sustained defendant's objection to the prosecution's proposal, noting that the segment at issue contained dramatic elements that made it a very powerful, persuasive piece. Later, during the testimony of Investigator Pina, the prosecution gave notice that it intended to show the jury the America's Most Wanted episode that aired after defendant was arrested, which included a recounting of the crime based on Hilda's statements to the police. The prosecutor argued that the television program was admissible as an adoptive admission under section 1221 of the Evidence Code because defendant told Pina in his statement made several days after the episode aired that he had watched the program and it happened exactly like she told you, except for the most important things of the case she left out. [19] Defendant objected on the ground that he, at most, had adopted only part of what Hilda had told the police, not the program itself, which included visual and sound elements that were merely part of the dramatic presentation. He further argued that any probative value of the show was outweighed by the prejudicial effect of those dramatic elements and was cumulative of other evidence, and therefore should be excluded under section 352 of the Evidence Code. After viewing the episode, the trial court ruled that the portion recounting what Hilda told the police could be shown to the jury. That segment was then played to the jury, and the videotape was entered into evidence. Defendant contends on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the prosecution to show the edited segment to the jury because it included irrelevant elements and was cumulative and unduly prejudicial. As an initial matter, respondent argues that defendant forfeited his challenge to the trial court's decision by choosing to show the entire episode, including portions the trial court had earlier excluded, to the jury during the defense opening statement. We will assume, however, that defendant's decision to do so was an instance of a party making the best of an allegedly erroneous ruling, and therefore does not bar his claim on appeal. (See People v. Calio (1986) 42 Cal.3d 639, 643 [230 Cal.Rptr. 137, 724 P.2d 1162].) We observe nonetheless that defendant's decision to show the tape to the jury again, and to include portions the trial court had excluded, undercuts his claim on appeal that the first showing by the prosecution was unduly prejudicial. (6) In reviewing the trial court's decision to allow the prosecution to show the edited portion of the program to the jury, we note that all relevant evidence is admissible at trial and that the trial court has broad discretion in determining the relevance of evidence [citations] but lacks discretion to admit irrelevant evidence. ( People v. Carter (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1114, 1166-1167 [32 Cal.Rptr.3d 759, 117 P.3d 476]; see Evid. Code, § 351.) Relevant evidence includes all evidence ... having any tendency in reason to prove ... any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action. (Evid. Code, § 210.) (7) Under Evidence Code section 352, a trial court may exclude otherwise relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by concerns of undue prejudice, confusion, or consumption of time. Evidence is substantially more prejudicial than probative [citation] if, broadly stated, it poses an intolerable `risk to the fairness of the proceedings or the reliability of the outcome [citation].' ( People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 724 [94 Cal.Rptr.2d 396, 996 P.2d 46].) On appeal, we review the trial court's rulings concerning the admissibility of the evidence for abuse of discretion. ( People v. Thornton (2007) 41 Cal.4th 391, 444-445 [61 Cal.Rptr.3d 461, 161 P.3d 3]; People v. Pollock (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1153, 1171 [13 Cal.Rptr.3d 34, 89 P.3d 353].) We find no abuse of discretion in the present case. The edited portion of the episode played for the jury is approximately one minute 20 seconds in length, consisting of the following scenes: depictions of a map of the route Bowie, defendant and Hilda traveled from the time they met to the site where Bowie was killed; Investigator Pina speaking in front of the ATM in Indio, where defendant attempted to withdraw money on the night of the murder; a Black male and a blonde woman, presumably depicting defendant and Bowie on an occasion when her car was broken down, standing and talking next to a road; the exteriors of the Sizzler's restaurant in Banning where Bowie, defendant and Hilda ate dinner, and of the Indio bank and ATM; a reenactment of the murder, which is described in more detail below; and footage of Investigator Pina interviewing Hilda at the scene of the murder. The soundtrack includes the voices of Investigator Pina and the narrator of the program describing what Hilda told the police, Hilda's statements to Investigator Pina at the scene, and occasional, very brief musical interludes. Defendant does not contend that the edited portion of the episode was entirely irrelevant, but rather that it contained dramatic elements that were not part of what Hilda had told the police, and, accordingly, were not adopted by defendant. We conclude, however, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the jury to see the edited segment itself, including the visual and audio elements, in order to give full context to defendant's statement that he saw the episode and agreed, to some degree, with what was depicted in it. We also agree with the trial court that the probative value of the edited portion of the show was not substantially outweighed by the potential for needless consumption of time or undue prejudice. The segment shown to the jury was very briefless than one and a half minutes in lengthso to the extent that it might have been considered cumulative of other evidence, such as the in-court testimony of Investigator Pina and Hilda, we cannot say the trial court would necessarily have abused its discretion in finding that the consumption of time in showing the video was insignificant. As to possible undue prejudice, we observe that the majority of the visual content of the portion played to the jury was quite neutral: maps of the area, Investigator Pina speaking to the camera, and footage of Hilda's interview at the crime scene. The dramatization of defendant and Bowie talking on the side of the road had no possibly prejudicial aspects. [20] Defendant mentions the presence of music during the segment, but these excerpts were very short, lasting merely a few seconds at a time, and could not have caused any undue emotional reaction in the jurors. While the reenactment of the murder, which fell approximately in the middle of the segment shown to the jury, had some potential to create prejudice, we again cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that any potential prejudice did not substantially outweigh the probative value of the segment. The reenactment scene was less than nine seconds long. Its visuals consisted of a person's feet walking on a dirt path; the silhouettes of one person raising a shotgun and pointing it at another person; a closeup view of a young blonde woman's face, who appears to scream; and then a wider shot of the woman turning and running, which then fades out. During this scene, Investigator Pina's voice is heard saying that the unsuccessful attempt to withdraw money from the ATM really upset the male suspect, Billy. At this time, she was taken to the abandoned orchard. She was shot twice with a shotgun blast to the back. As the picture of the woman running fades out, there is a musical tone lasting approximately one second, and the sound of a gun being fired twice. The shooting of Jamie Bowie was a violent act, of which the jury had already heard and observed extensive evidence in the trial. The extremely brief depiction of the murder, which did not show the victim actually being shot or the aftermath of the shooting, did not pose an intolerable risk of negatively affecting the fairness and reliability of the proceedings such that we could conclude the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the jury to see it. In sum, we cannot conclude that the admission of the edited portion of the episode played for the jury constituted an abuse of discretion. As mentioned above, the fact that defendant himself chose to play the segment to the jury a second time, including portions the trial court had previously excluded, undercuts his claim on appeal that the show's dramatic elements were unduly prejudicial. [21] To the extent defendant on appeal raises a federal constitutional claim distinct from his claim that the trial court abused its discretion under Evidence Code section 352, he forfeited this claim by failing to identify that ground in his objections to the trial court. ( People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 437-438 [35 Cal.Rptr.3d 644, 122 P.3d 765] ( Partida ).) To the extent any constitutional claim is merely a gloss on the objection raised at trial, it is preserved but is without merit because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence. ( Prince, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 1229.)