Opinion ID: 2594480
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Testimony of investigating officers

Text: Defendant further claims error based on the testimony of one of the police officers who investigated the scene of the Hickman murder. Sergeant Charles Rosales testified about the condition of Hickman's apartment at the time he found her. The prosecutor then asked about Hickman's body: Just looking at her ... without turning her over, could you tell how many wounds were on her? Sergeant Rosales responded, No, sir. There were so many stab wounds. [¶] In 22 years of police work I've never seen anybody stabbed this many times. (Italics added.) Defense counsel immediately objected, and the court struck Sergeant Rosales's statement and told the jury to disregard it. Defendant then sought a mistrial, arguing that the officer had provided a commentary on the proportionality of homicides and was putting th[e] case on the extreme spectrum. The court rejected defense counsel's request but again admonished the jury to disregard Sergeant Rosales's statement as if you had never heard it. On appeal, defendant argues that the officer's statement was highly prejudicial because, if a juror felt that the death penalty should apply only in the most serious of cases, the officer's statement confirmed that this case fell into that category. We conclude the court handled the matter appropriately. The court twice admonished the jury to disregard the statement. Moreover, the autopsy evidence indicating Hickman had been stabbed almost 50 times was, by itself, sufficient to cause the jury to conclude that this murder was unusually brutal. Sergeant Rosales's statement did not likely affect the jury's conclusion in this regard. We do not think defendant's chance of having a fair trial suffered irreparable damage. ( People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal.4th 225, 282, 96 Cal. Rptr.2d 682,1 P.3d 3.) Defendant further objects to certain testimony of Sergeant Robert Perry of the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department. Sergeant Perry retrieved defendant's jeans from the home of Benny Garcia. He testified that the jeans lacked a button and that the button appeared to be ripped from its position. Defense counsel objected, but the court overruled the objection. Defendant argues on appeal that the evidence was unduly prejudicial because it reinforced an idea the prosecution was trying subtly to advance that defendant had lost the button in the heat of an unlawful sexual encounter. Defendant notes that the prosecution had dropped sexual assault allegations. We find no error. A button that is pulled from a pair of jeans will likely stretch or tear the cloth in a distinct way as compared to a button that is cut off or falls off as a result of ordinary use. Deputy Sergeant Perry had examined the jeans and was qualified to give his lay opinion that the button had been removed by force, and the evidence shed light on the circumstances of the crime.