Opinion ID: 1172635
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Testimony of Mark Williams and Kenneth Simmons

Text: Mark Williams admitted he was a member of the 89th Street Family Bloods gang set. Williams denied, however, that he shot at Patricia Lewis's house and denied having a January 8, 1983, conversation with Kenneth Simmons regarding the shooting. Finally, Williams denied visiting defendant in jail in October or November of 1982 and testified his prior testimony to the contrary in certain juvenile court proceedings was not correct. The prosecution then called Kenneth Simmons to testify about prior inconsistent statements by Mark Williams. Simmons also testified he was a member of the 89th Street Family Bloods gang set. Simmons testified that, in a conversation held while they ingested drugs together in an alley on the morning of January 7 or 8, 1983, Mark Williams told him that he (Mark) and other persons had gone, one or two nights previously, to take care of some business for defendant, involving a female witness who lived on 87th Street. The prosecutor then asked: Who did he say wanted it done? Simmons answered: Barry [Williams, i.e., defendant]. Simmons also testified that Williams had a shotgun during that conversation [2] and that he (Simmons) was arrested later that same day carrying a shotgun Williams had given him. Defendant argues admission of Simmons's and Williams's testimony was erroneous in several respects. First, defendant asserts Simmons's testimony was improperly admitted because the prosecution failed to lay a proper foundation for it. Second, defendant contends admission of Simmons's testimony violated his right of confrontation. Third, defendant maintains admission of Simmons's and Williams's testimony was fundamentally unfair because the prosecution failed to show that defendant authorized or directed the intimidation of Lewis. Finally, defendant contends that, even if relevant, testimony by Simmons and Williams should not have been admitted because it was more prejudicial than probative. The People laid a proper foundation for Simmons's testimony about Williams's out-of-court statements. Evidence of a statement made by a witness is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement is inconsistent with his testimony at the hearing and is offered in compliance with [Evidence Code] Section 770 [requiring a witness be given an opportunity to explain or deny any extrinsic inconsistent statement sought to be admitted]. (Evid. Code, § 1235.) Williams's statements to Simmons regarding the shooting of Patricia Lewis's house were inconsistent with Williams's subsequent testimony at defendant's trial. According to Simmons, Mark Williams told him defendant wanted Williams to scare the lady on 87th Street who was going to court on him so that she doesn't go to court. Simmons further testified that Mark Williams said to him on January 7 or 8, 1983, that he (Mark Williams) and others had taken care of some business that Barry (i.e., defendant) wanted taken care of concerning a witness, a lady who lived on 87th Street. At defendant's trial, when given an opportunity to explain or deny these statements, Williams denied that he made them. Thus, the trial court properly overruled defendant's hearsay objection to admission of Simmons's testimony about Williams's out-of-court statements. (Evid. Code, § 1235.) [3] Defendant argues even if Williams's statements to Simmons fall within a hearsay exception, they were inadmissible because no evidence showed Williams ever visited or communicated with defendant before the shooting of Lewis's house, so as to acquire personal knowledge of defendant's wishes in that regard. In the absence of such evidence, defendant argues, any statement to Simmons by Williams purporting to describe defendant's intention was not competent evidence. Defendant is incorrect. Williams testified at defendant's trial that he recalled testifying at a previous juvenile court adjudication about his involvement in the shooting of Lewis's house. [4] Williams acknowledged he had testified in the earlier proceeding to visiting defendant at the county jail, although he denied that previous testimony was correct. The substance of Williams's prior testimony was properly admitted pursuant to Evidence Code section 1235, to show he communicated with defendant before the shooting of Lewis's home. Admission of the testimony was not fundamentally unfair. Defendant argues admission of Mark Williams's out-of-court statements violated his right of confrontation. Not so. (10) The receipt in evidence of a prior inconsistent statement does not violate the confrontation clauses of the federal and state Constitutions where the declarant testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination. ( People v. Zapien, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 955.) Mark Williams testified at defendant's trial and was subject to cross-examination. Therefore, the trial court's having received in evidence Mark Williams's prior inconsistent statements to Simmons did not violate defendant's confrontation right. (9b) Defendant further argues that, in any event, evidence Mark Williams visited him in jail could not have established a sufficient connection between defendant and the intimidation of Lewis to justify admitting the testimony of Simmons and Williams on that topic. Defendant cites People v. Hannon (1977) 19 Cal.3d 588, 599 [138 Cal. Rptr. 885, 564 P.2d 1203], and People v. Terry (1962) 57 Cal.2d 538, 566 [21 Cal. Rptr. 185, 370 P.2d 985]. (11) In Hannon, we stated: `Generally, evidence of the attempt of third persons to suppress testimony is inadmissible against a defendant where the effort did not occur in his presence. [Citation.] However, if the defendant has authorized the attempt of the third person to suppress testimony, evidence of such conduct is admissible against the defendant.' ( People v. Hannon, supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 599, quoting People v. Weiss (1958) 50 Cal.2d 535, 554 [327 P.2d 527].) In Terry, we held that proof of a criminal defendant's mere opportunity to authorize a third person to attempt to influence a witness has no value as circumstantial evidence that the defendant did so. ( People v. Terry, supra, 57 Cal.2d at p. 566.) (9c) More than mere opportunity was shown here. First, as previously discussed, Kenneth Simmons testified Mark Williams told him that he and others had gone to take care of some business that Barry wanted done. This business, Simmons testified Williams told him, involved a witness, a lady who lived on 87th Street. That Simmons's testimony suggested defendant authorized the shooting of Lewis's home is illustrated by the fact that, after Simmons testified, defendant's trial counsel (unsuccessfully) moved for a mistrial on the basis that the prosecutor had put into evidence this statement that `Barry told me to shoot up her house'.... Second, Arthur Cox testified that, while they were in jail together, defendant stated he (defendant) was going to get some witnesses shot in order to beat this case. Cox testified defendant said he was going to get Curtis [Thomas] to shoot one of the witnesses.... Cox further testified the witness defendant referred to was Patricia Lewis. In light of the evidence showing that defendant authorized the shooting of Lewis's house, the trial court properly admitted evidence of the shooting on the theory that evidence of attempts to suppress evidence are relevant to show consciousness of guilt. ( People v. Hannon, supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 599.)