Opinion ID: 1277356
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Testimony of Cindy Widney

Text: The defense presented evidence in mitigation to the effect that defendant was a loving and devoted husband. Several witnesses testified to his good character in this regard. The prosecution thereafter sought to rebut this good-character evidence by offering the testimony of defendant's sister-in-law, Cindy Widney, who was prepared to describe unwelcome overtures that defendant had made to her. The defense sought exclusion of the proffered evidence on the grounds of lack of relevance and undue prejudice. (See Evid. Code, §§ 210, 352.) After considering the parties' arguments at a hearing held outside the jury's presence, the trial court concluded that because the defense had portrayed defendant as a loving husband, the proffered evidence properly could be admitted in rebuttal, and on that basis denied defendant's request. Widney thereafter testified during the prosecution's case-in-rebuttal that defendant once attempted to kiss her and on another occasion said to her, I've been dreaming of you. On a third occasion, defendant mentioned to her in a joking manner that maybe they [i.e., their respective spouses] should go back to mom and dad and we should get married. On a fourth occasion, defendant appeared at the front door of Widney's residence; frightened by his presence, she telephoned a neighbor, who observed defendant enter Widney's home through a side entrance. Widney retrieved a baseball bat and confronted defendant, who was standing inside her home. Defendant explained that his presence emanated from a concern for her. I didn't know if you were raped, hurt or what, he told her. On appeal, defendant contends that because the testimony of Cindy Widney did not involve the commission of an actual crime, admission of the evidence was improper under section 190.3, factor (b). Defendant mischaracterizes the basis upon which the trial court admitted this evidence. As noted, it was not offered as criminal activity pursuant to section 190.3, factor (b), but as relevant evidence to rebut the portrayal of defendant as a loving and caring husband. (§ 190.3.) [39] Defendant further contends that this evidence constituted improper rebuttal. The admission of evidence in rebuttal is a matter left to the sound discretion of the trial court. ( People v. Raley, supra, 2 Cal.4th 870, 912, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 678, 830 P.2d 712.) The court's decision in this regard will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of palpable abuse. ( People v. Kelly (1990) 51 Cal.3d 931, 965, 275 Cal.Rptr. 160, 800 P.2d 516; see also People v. Bacigalupo (1991) 1 Cal.4th 103, 142, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 335, 820 P.2d 559, vacated on other grounds, 506 U.S. 802, 113 S.Ct. 32, 121 L.Ed.2d 5, judg. affd. on remand, 6 Cal.4th 457, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 808, 862 P.2d 808 [defendant's presentation of evidence in mitigation as to his good character open[s] the door to prosecution evidence tending to rebut that specific aspect of defendant's personality].) In the present case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that defendant, by introducing character evidence suggesting that he was a good and loving husband, opened the door to the prosecution's evidence in rebuttal. [40] Moreover, even if we were to assume that the admission of Cindy Widney's testimony was improper, such error would not have been prejudicial. Defendant stood convicted of having committed one brutal murder in addition to multiple sexual assaults. The prosecution's penalty phase evidence also overwhelmingly established defendant's culpability for the murder of his 11-year-old niece and assaults upon other women. Against this backdrop of violent crime, no reasonable possibility exists that the jury would have rendered a different penalty phase verdict had Cindy Widney's testimony been excluded. (See People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 449, 250 Cal.Rptr. 604, 758 P.2d 1135.)