Opinion ID: 1375029
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Denying Motion to Exclude Photographs and Magazines Portraying Youths

Text: Over an objection made on grounds of irrelevance and undue prejudice, and also implicitly made under Evidence Code section 1101, the court ordered certain magazines and photographs depicting clothed and unclothed youths admitted under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b), as evidence of motive and intent to perform a lewd or lascivious act on Carter in violation of section 288. The court admonished the jury not to consider the items as evidence that defendant was evil or was disposed to commit certain types of crimes. (38) We review the admission of evidence under Evidence Code section 1101 for an abuse of discretion. ( People v. Daniels (1991) 52 Cal.3d 815, 856 [277 Cal. Rptr. 122, 802 P.2d 906] [evidence of other offenses].) Character evidence is admissible in this state unless barred by a particular statute. (Evid. Code, § 1100.) Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (a), creates an exception to that rule. It generally forbids introducing character evidence to prove ... conduct on a specified occasion. Subdivision (b) of Evidence Code section 1101 in turn creates an exception to subdivision (a): evidence of conduct may be admitted to prove motive or intent, although it may not be admitted to show a disposition to do the type of conduct shown by the evidence. We have examined the magazines and photographs in question. They contain sexually explicit stories, photographs and drawings of males ranging in age from prepubescent to young adult. Some of the photographs are of similar character. Others depict youths in a manner that is not sexually suggestive. The court did not abuse its discretion by ruling the magazines admissible under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b), to show intent. We believe the photographs were admissible to show defendant's intent to molest a young boy in violation of section 288. Defendant's intent to violate section 288 was put at issue when he pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged. ( People v. Balcom (1994) 7 Cal.4th 414, 422-423 [27 Cal. Rptr.2d 666, 867 P.2d 777]; see also People v. Robbins (1988) 45 Cal.3d 867, 879 [248 Cal. Rptr. 172, 755 P.2d 355].) Although not all were sexually explicit in the abstract, the photographs, presented in the context of defendant's possession of them, yielded evidence from which the jury could infer that he had a sexual attraction to young boys and intended to act on that attraction. (See People v. Bales (1961) 189 Cal. App.2d 694, 701 [11 Cal. Rptr. 639] [photograph of molestation victim in the nude admissible to show lewd intent.].) The photographs of young boys were admissible as probative of defendant's intent to do a lewd or lascivious act with Carter. Defendant also contends that the items were substantially more prejudicial than they were probative. Hence, in his view, their introduction was barred by Evidence Code section 352. We find no abuse of discretion in admitting the magazines or the photographs. To be sure, some of this material showed young boys in sexually graphic poses. It would undoubtedly be disturbing to most people. But we cannot say that it was substantially more prejudicial than probative, for its value in establishing defendant's intent to violate section 288 was substantial. The court balanced the items' evidentiary worth against their potential to cause prejudice and determined that the former substantially outweighed the latter. Its decision was reasonable. Citing Dawson v. Delaware (1992) 503 U.S. 159 [117 L.Ed.2d 309, 112 S.Ct. 1093], a capital sentencing case, defendant also contends that his First Amendment rights were violated when materials he was constitutionally entitled to possess were used against him. He did not raise a claim of error on this ground below, and he has not preserved it for review.