Opinion ID: 2599880
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reference to Prison Gangs and Housing (Oliver)

Text: Oliver argues that evidence admitted during the penalty phase suggesting he was a dangerous inmate was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial under state law. (Evid.Code, §§ 350, 352.) He also claims it violated numerous guaranties under the federal and state Constitutions (fair trial, trial by jury, due process, and reliable and individualized penalty). As mentioned, three correctional officers testified that Oliver was housed in high-security settings reserved for inmates with disciplinary problems or violent histories at the time he committed misconduct in jail or prison. This testimony was provided by (1) Officer Valiente about the beverage-throwing incident in the Chino prison, (2) Sergeant Towns about the plastic knife found in San Quentin Prison, and (3) Deputy Cacheiro about the typewriter and scuffle incident in county jail. The San Quentin incident included testimony that notorious gang members occupied the same housing block. Oliver suggests such testimony was not relevant to any permissible statutory aggravating factor, and that it was admitted solely to inflame the jury into concluding that he was a violent person who deserved to die. Oliver did not object to this testimony on any ground at trial. He therefore has forfeited his present claims under both statutory ( People v. Farnam, supra, 28 Cal.4th 107, 160-161, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 106, 47 P.3d 988) and constitutional ( Partida, supra, 37 Cal.4th 428, 435, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 644, 122 P.3d 765) law. The contention also lacks merit. The challenged testimony merely placed in context other admissible incidents in aggravation at the penalty phase. The evidence tended to show the gravity of Oliver's violent and threatening criminal conduct behind bars, namely, that he was undeterred by heightened supervision and special security measures. (See People v. Melton (1988) 44 Cal.3d 713, 757, 244 Cal.Rptr. 867, 750 P.2d 741 [jury is entitled to know seriousness of other violent crimes in deciding penalty].) Contrary to what Oliver suggests, the prosecution did not insinuate that defendant himself was a gang member or had any involvement in gang violence. (Cf. People v. Tuilaepa, supra, 4 Cal.4th 569, 588, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 382, 842 P.2d 1142.) We reject the claim.