Opinion ID: 1185757
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Evidence of Other Criminal Conduct

Text: (9) Defendant next complains of improprieties in the receipt of evidence that he had committed another crime. (See People v. Albertson (1944) 23 Cal.2d 550, 577-578 [145 P.2d 7].) Attebury testified that during their conversation in the trailer on Sunday defendant said something about when he went through Orleans [a nearby town] that some bar would be missing something when they opened up the next day or something. Defense counsel objected to the line of questioning on the grounds of relevancy only when the prosecutor asked Attebury if there had been any further conversation along that line. The objection was overruled. Attebury further testified that defendant asked what places might be hit around Happy Camp and that when advised there was an all night patrol in Happy Camp defendant stated that it would not take him too long to get into a place as he had explosives and stuff, tools to work with. The matters testified to by Attebury after defense counsel's objection were clearly relevant and defendant does not now urge error in the receipt of such testimony. (See People v. Schader (1969) 71 Cal.2d 761, 772 [80 Cal. Rptr. 1, 457 P.2d 841].) He challenges only the testimony relating to the bar in Orleans. However, the objection at trial was not made on the ground that the testimony disclosed the commission of another crime and was not made in a timely manner if directed to that ground. There was, moreover, no motion to strike the reference to such other crime (see Evid. Code, § 353, subd. (a); People v. Williams, supra, 11 Cal. App.3d 970), and we are satisfied that the receipt of such evidence, if erroneous, could not have resulted in a miscarriage of justice (see Evid. Code, § 353, subd. (b); People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [299 P.2d 243]). (10) Defendant further complains of prosecutorial misconduct when reference was made in closing argument to defendant's other conduct which may have been criminal. [14] There was no objection or motion to strike the prosecutor's remarks, perhaps because such a motion would necessarily fail in view of the fact that the remarks were permissible deductions grounded on evidence of record. (See People v. Beivelman (1968) 70 Cal.2d 60, 76 [73 Cal. Rptr. 521, 447 P.2d 913].) Even assuming prosecutorial misconduct defendant cannot object unless the misconduct can be said to have contributed materially to the verdict in a closely balanced case or is of such a nature that it could not have been cured by a proper and timely admonition. (See People v. Perry (1972) 7 Cal.3d 756, 790 [103 Cal. Rptr. 161, 499 P.2d 129].) Neither exception to the rule is applicable here.