Opinion ID: 2517672
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Steven Rice

Text: In 1981, Steven Rice lived at the Vose Street apartments in an apartment next to Reilly's. Rice was allowing petitioner to live with him rent-free. Petitioner alleges that at some point after the killings, Boyd entered Rice's apartment, began beating Rice, and warned him that he should not mention Boyd's name to the police or Boyd would kill him. These allegations are supported by Rice's testimony. Rice, who now lives in Utah, testified he was friends with the Hardy family and lived in the Vose Street apartment with petitioner in 1981. He testified that about two weeks after the murders, Boyd entered his apartment while he was sleeping, began hitting him in the face, and told him not to mention his name to the police or he was going to kill my white ass. Boyd denied threatening Rice in this manner. The referee found [t]he evidence showed that, at some point after the killings, Boyd came into Steve Rice's apartment while he was asleep and began hitting Rice, telling him `he better not mention his name [to the police] or he was going to kill [Rice's] white ass.' As noted, the referee specifically found Boyd lied when he denied threatening and intimidating the Vose Street residents and that he generally lacked credibility. Respondent denies Boyd ever threatened Rice not to go to the police and also raises a number of exceptions to the referee's findings regarding Rice. First, respondent takes exception to the referee's findings on the ground that Rice never mentioned to the police investigating the murders that Boyd had threatened him, although he had opportunities to do so. Although that fact tends to undercut Rice's credibility, we note Rice testified that Boyd threatened him with harm should he reveal Boyd's involvement. In addition, Rice states in his declaration that he complained several times to the police about Boyd's attempt to retaliate against him, and the police did nothing in response. [12] In agreeing with Rice and not Boyd, the referee made a classic credibility determination that is entitled to deference if supported by substantial evidence. Because the referee's decision is supported by Rice's own testimony and his declaration, we overrule this exception. Second, respondent takes exception to the referee's findings on the ground that Rice's testimony regarding Boyd's assault on him was inadmissible evidence of bad character. (Evid.Code, § 1101.) Respondent did not object on this ground at the hearing and thus forfeited its consideration in this court. In any event, Rice's testimony was admissible under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule because it was an attempt to keep the conspiracy from being discovered and its ends thwarted, while it was still an ongoing enterprise. (See discussion, ante, at pt. IV.B.1.a.) Third, respondent takes exception to the referee's finding that when Demby interviewed Rice, he repeatedly told Mr. Demby that after the killings, Boyd had physically attacked him and ordered him not to mention his (Boyd's) name to the police. (Italics added.) We have reviewed the transcript of the interview (which was admitted without objection) and are satisfied the referee's conclusion on this point is accurate. We thus overrule this exception. As the referee's conclusions regarding Rice's evidence are supported by substantial evidence, namely the testimony of Rice himself as well as his declaration and the transcript of his interview with defense counsel, the referee's conclusions are entitled to deference, and we adopt them.