Opinion ID: 2552553
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Steve Miller's Alleged Drug Use and Violent Reputation

Text: The trial court sustained, on relevance grounds, the prosecutor's objections to questions about the types of drugs Steve Miller abused and Miller's reputation for violence. As will be recalled, Miller was defendant's biological father. Miller died when defendant was four years old, having seen little of him since his birth. There was little connection between the two individuals. Defendant's mother testified that Miller abused drugs. She was describing conduct that Miller apparently engaged in before defendant's birth. Defense counsel inquired, What types of drugs was Steve taking while you were dating him? The prosecution objected to the question on relevance grounds, and the trial court sustained the objection. We review a trial court's ruling excluding evidence on grounds of irrelevance (Evid.Code, § 350) for abuse of discretion. The trial court has broad discretion in determining the relevance of evidence [citations] but lacks discretion to admit irrelevant evidence. ( People v. Carter (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1114, 1166-1167, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 759, 117 P.3d 476.) The court acted within its discretion in concluding that evidence of the precise nature of the substances consumed, apparently before defendant's birth, by a figure who played essentially no role in defendant's upbringing, did not have any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action (Evid.Code, § 210); i.e., it was irrelevant to the sentence that defendant should receive. Excluding irrelevant evidence did not deprive defendant of his right to present a defense. (See People v. Lewis and Oliver (2006) 39 Cal.4th 970, 996-997, 47 Cal. Rptr.3d 467, 140 P.3d 775.) We turn to defendant's next claim, regarding exclusion of reputation evidence. Danny Montgomery testified briefly for the defense. He stated that he worked in a bar in his late teens, and met Markita Thornton, defendant's mother, who worked for the same employer as a coat-checker. She was about two years younger than Montgomery. Montgomery testified that he would acquire illegal drugs and provide one type, reds, to Markita Thornton. Defense counsel asked Montgomery if he had ever met Steve Miller, and he replied no. Counsel then asked, Did you know him by reputation? and Montgomery replied yes. Counsel asked, What was his reputation? The prosecution objected on grounds of relevance and hearsay. The trial court noted that Miller was not a party or a witness and sustained the objection on relevance grounds. On appeal, defendant argues that the question did not call for irrelevant evidence. Respondent comments that the question was vague and, although the jury already knew that Miller had been a violent man, counsel could have been seeking an answer based on Miller's reputation for anything. Defendant's claim is without merit. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the objection, nor was there any due process violation. As stated, the links between defendant and Miller were attenuated â defendant had seldom met his biological father, their approximately seven encounters occurred when defendant was very young, and Miller died when defendant was four. In essence, defendant had no ties to Miller. Under those circumstances, the court could reasonably rule that Miller's reputation in the community was not relevant to the penalty that defendant should receive.