Opinion ID: 2636899
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Admission of irrelevant evidence.

Text: Appellant contends that the trial court erred in admitting pages of what appellant claimed was Black Tarns, a science fiction novel he was writing. The manuscript pages were found in his residence. Some pages, found in a notebook, bore the following entry: ELO-Rainin' as he stood watching the girls 69 each other, he DEAD + Powerful Didn't even care. The music made him think of flying and killing. He choked the life out of her, just for the hell of it. The court had excluded the evidence at the guilt phase when the prosecutor sought to offer it as evidence of premeditation. Before cross-examining Dr. Mills, the prosecutor advised the court and defense counsel that he would ask the witness whether, if those statements were a recordation of that kind of sexual activity and violence, the entry would have a bearing on the expert's diagnosis, if they were a message from God, or if they showed a psychopathology indicating a different diagnosis. Defense counsel objected on grounds of absolute nonsense and sheer poppycock which we deem to have been an assertion that the evidence was irrelevant. The court overruled the objection, reasoning that an expert may be asked about anything considered in reaching a diagnosis unless an Evidence Code section 352 objection was sustained. Defense counsel then made such an objection. The court ruled that the prosecutor would be permitted to inquire about the full passage, but not simply about the number 69 and whether it had a sexual connotation. When asked about the passage, Dr. Mills characterized it as pseudo-pornographic and trash, stating that it did not mean anything in particular in reaching his diagnosis. He believed appellant's claim that the passage was from Black Tarns. The prosecutor also asked Dr. Rosenthal about the passage. He, too, believed it was part of the science fiction novel. Finally, during closing argument, the prosecutor argued that the defense failed to show how the passage fit into the science fiction novel. Emphasizing only the 69 passage, appellant contends that admission of the evidence was prejudicial error. It was not. The complete passage described both sexual interaction between girls and homicidal conduct by a person indifferent to death. It was not unreasonable to ask the experts whether they had considered this writing (among others) when they assessed appellant's explanation for his behavior and came to a conclusion that he acted under an insane delusion. The evidence was relevant and the use of it in cross-examination of Drs. Mills and Rosenthal was within the scope of cross-examination permitted by Evidence Code section 721. We reject defendant's additional argument that defense counsel failed to provide constitutionally adequate representation during this exchange. The claim is based on counsel's failure to call to the attention of the court that the closest page in the notebook containing the 69 passage began with reference to B-T. Had counsel done so, defendant reasons, it would have been apparent to the court that the 69 passage was part of the Black Tarns manuscript. The claim is speculative both as to the conclusion the court might have drawn from the juxtaposition of the two entries and as to the ruling the court might have made. Moreover, as the experts found no significance in the 69 passage, admission of that evidence was not prejudicial.