Opinion ID: 2590211
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission of expanded version of redacted list

Text: As discussed in the statement of penalty phase facts above, the prosecution, in its case in aggravation, presented evidence that defendant had murdered six men in Oregon and two in Michigan. The prosecution then sought to present evidence that the list found in defendant's car contained seven entries referring to these eight victims, in addition to the entries previously admitted during the guilt phase. The prosecution asserted that GR 2 referred to the two victims from Grand Rapids, Michigan; PORTLAND HAWAII referred to Lance Taggs, who grew up in Hawaii and who, when last seen, was wearing a shirt with Hawaii printed on it and carrying a State of Hawaii identification card; PORTLAND DENVER referred to Michael O'Fallon, who was from the area near Denver, Colorado; PORTLAND BLOOD referred to Michael Duane Cluck, whose body was covered in blood when it was found; PORTLAND RESERVE referred to Anthony Silveira, who was a member of the National Guard and whose army jacket defendant took from him; PORTLAND HEAD referred to Brian Whitcher, who liked to smoke marijuana; and PORTLAND ELK (or ECK), by process of elimination, evidently referred to John Doe Oregon. The defense objected to admission of the additional entries, citing the same grounds as those on which they sought exclusion of the entries relevant to the guilt phase offenses, i.e., that the entries lacked relevance, constituted hearsay, and supported only speculative inferences. The court overruled the defense objection and permitted the prosecution to introduce the additional entries, which were graphically presented to the jury as a second column to the original entries. The court observed it would permit the prosecutor to introduce the entire unredacted list if the defense preferred it over the redacted list, an option the defense declined. Defendant now reiterates his contention that the trial court erred in admitting the expanded version of the list, renewing the arguments we have previously rejected (see ante, 99 Cal. Rptr.2d at pp. 36-38, 5 P.3d at pp. 100-102). For the reasons articulated above, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the additional list entries in the penalty phase. Defendant argues that he suffered additional prejudice in the penalty phase as a result of the admission of the expanded list, in that the jury had, by then, already decided the list was a death list. Moreover, he argues, the prosecutor's presentation implied there were exactly seven entries on the list in addition to those the jury had already seen and, thus, that there existed a perfect fit between the list and the other evidence of the penalty phase offenses. The jury's guilt verdicts, however, did not necessarily establish that it believed the list signified defendant's victims, and the appearance of a perfect fit resulted from defendant's election not to permit the unredacted list. Defendant contends the prosecutor's questioning of his investigator implied there were only seven additional entries on the list. [11] Contrary to defendant, we do not believe the jury necessarily would have inferred, from the prosecutor's use of the word finally, that the additional entries exhausted the list; more likely the jury simply understood the word as signalling the end of that line of questioning.