Opinion ID: 1173316
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence of Holt's Drug Use

Text: (3) During the direct testimony of De George, defense counsel made an anticipatory objection to any testimony that after the Troia shooting Holt purchased and used drugs. The prosecution asserted that the evidence was relevant to show motive. The trial court overruled the objection. De George then testified that with the proceeds of the robbery Holt purchased heroin from Bright and fixed. Another prosecution witness was permitted to testify that he too saw Holt fix with heroin after the robbery/murder. During cross-examination of Holt, the prosecution attempted to establish that Holt had a heroin habit. The rule applicable here is that evidence of an accused's narcotics addiction is inadmissible where it `tends only remotely or to an insignificant degree to prove a material fact in the case....' ( People v. Cardenas (1982) 31 Cal.3d 897, 906 [184 Cal. Rptr. 165, 647 P.2d 569] [citing People v. Davis (1965) 233 Cal. App.2d 156, 161 (43 Cal. Rptr. 357)].) As we stated in Cardenas, supra, the cases which have upheld admission of evidence of an accused's drug addiction involved crimes where obtaining narcotics was the direct object of the crime or where a violation of Health and Safety Code was charged. In cases where the object of the offense was to obtain money for drugs, as the prosecution alleges in this case, evidence of the accused's drug use has been found to be inadmissible. ( People v. Cardenas, supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 906 and cases cited therein.) Since De George had already testified that he and Holt had split the proceeds from the robbery, whatever minimal probative value there was in the additional testimony that Holt used his share to purchase and then use drugs was outweighed by the inflammatory effect of this testimony on the jury. As we noted in Cardenas, [t]he impact of narcotics addiction evidence `upon a jury of laymen [is] catastrophic.... It cannot be doubted that the public generally is influenced with the seriousness of the narcotics problem ... and has been taught to loathe those who have anything to do with illegal narcotics in any form or to any extent.' ( People v. Cardenas, supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 907, citing People v. Davis (1965) 233 Cal. App.2d 156, 161 [43 Cal. Rptr. 357].) Admission of the testimony concerning Holt's drug use was improper.