Opinion ID: 1207047
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Admission of Saw, Knife and Twine

Text: (8a) Defendant contends the court prejudicially erred in admitting a saw (pruning type), butcher knife and two shanks of twine that he had bought in Texas on June 6 and 7, after the murder of Mrs. Buchanan. At the hearing on the admissibility of the items, defense counsel argued that they were only marginally relevant to defendant's threats to kill Donna Hatch and that it would be impossible for the jury to limit its consideration to their relevance to threats against Hatch. The prosecutor argued that the evidence had two purposes. The first was a narrow one of showing defendant's consciousness of guilt in that defendant bought these items to use in killing Donna Hatch, who, after their falling-out, had become a serious threat as a witness because of the incriminating things defendant had said to her. Defendant's consciousness of guilt was also shown by the fact that when questioned after his arrest, he denied any connection with the saw, claiming Spider must have bought it. The larger purpose of the evidence was to show defendant's identity as the killer of Mrs. Buchanan. The items, which inferably were to be used in killing Donna Hatch, were similar to the tools used on Mrs. Buchanan  dead or alive. The court acknowledged the potential prejudice but concluded that the probative value of the evidence was sufficient to warrant its admission in light of the unusual factors of the cutting off of the victim's head and hands: The circumstances are about as unique and different as any case that I have ever seen, and there are certain earmarks of the case that seem to be closely related with the possibility that the defendant may have intended to do something along the same lines to some other person who was standing in his way; that is, who was a threat to him as far as his liberty was concerned, and it is so unusual that it seems to be a circumstance which might well show a consciousness on the part of the defendant of his guilt.... The cases on which defendant relies are distinguishable from the present situation in that they involved the admission of weapons found in the defendant's possession that could not have been the ones used in the crime and were not admitted for any other relevant purpose. ( People v. Riser (1956) 47 Cal.2d 566 [305 P.2d 1]; People v. Henderson (1976) 58 Cal. App.3d 349 [129 Cal. Rptr. 844].) No abuse of discretion appears in the court's ruling here.