Opinion ID: 2552553
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Erika S.'s Correspondence

Text: Defendant claims that the trial court erred in sustaining, on grounds of cumulativeness, the prosecution's objection to the introduction of a number of letters Erika S. wrote to him. As noted, in cross-examining Erika S. at the guilt phase, defendant elicited testimony that their relationship was affectionate as well as tumultuous. The jury saw photographic evidence of this and heard passages from two love letters Erika S. sent to defendant. The two letters were received into evidence. Erika S. also testified that at the time she wrote them she was passionate about defendant. During the penalty phase, defendant sought to introduce into evidence 17 love letters written by Erika S., 16 of them to him and one to a third party named Russell in which she said she thought defendant was attractive. The prosecutor objected, arguing that the letters were cumulative evidence on a nonissue; it's a nonissue that she loved him. The prosecutor clarified thereafter that his objection regarding the letters to defendant rested on cumulativeness (see Evid.Code, § 352); the objection to the letter to Russell rested on relevance ( id., § 350). Defense counsel noted that the jury had heard evidence of defendant's violent and threatening conduct toward Erika S. around the time of the high school homecoming dance of October 10, 1992, and said that counsel wanted to remind the jury of the context of the relationship. The court asked, Hasn't she stated all this on the stand already? and counsel conceded that the witness had, but argued in effect that the letters would flesh out the testimony. The court excluded the letters as cumulative in light of Erika S.'s prior testimony. On appeal, defendant contends the court erred in excluding the letters. However, we will normally not second guess a trial court's ruling under Evidence Code section 352. ( People v. Valdez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 73, 109, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 271, 82 P.3d 296.) In light of Erika S.'s own testimony, the trial court could reasonably have excluded the letters as cumulative. Defendant also argues that the trial court should not be permitted to rule against admitting the love letters simply because the prosecution said it did not dispute the evidence (and presumably would be willing to stipulate) that Erika S. loved him. (See Old Chief v. United States (1997) 519 U.S. 172, 186-189, 117 S.Ct. 644, 136 L.Ed.2d 574.) However, the court did not do so. It excluded the evidence solely on the ground that the evidence was cumulative under Evidence Code section 352.