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

Heading: Admission of Candice Smith testimony.

Text: Appellant objected to admission of Smith's testimony that he telephoned her, using the name Parrott, and asked her to appear in a commercial, on the ground that the prosecution would be unable to prove that the caller was appellant. The court deemed the objection to be one made under Evidence Code section 352, and ruled that the evidence was more probative than prejudicial. Appellant now argues that the circumstantial evidence that appellant was the caller was not a sufficient foundation for admission of the evidence and contends that the evidence lacked probative value. The prosecution bore the burden of establishing that appellant was the caller. ( People v. Collins (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 617, 628, 118 Cal.Rptr. 864.) (a) The proponent of the proffered evidence has the burden of producing evidence as to the existence of the preliminary fact, and the proffered evidence is inadmissible unless the court finds that there is evidence sufficient to sustain a finding of the existence of the preliminary fact, when: [¶] ... [¶] (4) The proffered evidence is of a statement or other conduct of a particular person and the preliminary fact is whether that person made the statement or so conducted himself. (Evid.Code, § 403, subd. (a)(4).) That burden was met. The People established that appellant had expressed an interest in Smith and knew she had a daughter; that he had played at Smith's table; that he was familiar with the Avalon Modeling Agency; and that he claimed to be calling from Atlanta, Georgia, the place he told the Barbizon agency his Parrott or Barrett firm was located. Although circumstantial, that evidence was a sufficient basis for concluding that appellant was the person who called Smith. The court did not abuse its discretion in admitting it. ( People v. Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1167, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 235, 885 P.2d 1.) Assuming that appellant's argument on the foundation objection was sufficient to raise the latter claim, it lacks merit. Smith's testimony was relevant to the preplanning activity in which appellant engaged as he sought to lure women and young girls to his trailer.