Opinion ID: 1124723
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Fifteenth Were Harrelson's testimony and the Harrelson-Vlahovich recordings properly received in evidence?

Text: Yes. Vlahovich contends that it was error to allow in evidence Harrelson's testimony regarding their conversations in the Orange County Jail and to permit tape recordings of their conversations of July 8, 14, 25, 28 and 30 to be received in evidence. When Vlahovich was cross-examined August 15 about his statements to Harrelson, the deputy district attorney explained his theory of admissibility as follows: Your Honor, if the evidence tends to show that this witness is available to kill for hire, I think that that would be a vital, a most important, inquiry for this trial for the benefit of the jury. It does contribute. We are not just talking about prejudice. It contributes to his guilt or innocence of these charges. Harrelson testified, as a rebuttal witness, on direct, cross, and redirect examination during the afternoon of August 30 and the morning of August 31 with no opposition to his testimony other than scattered objections that certain answers were conclusional or unresponsive. At the commencement of the afternoon session of August 31, Vlahovich made a motion to strike. The deputy said in opposing the motion: The evidence that we have here is offered on the theory that it shows intent or state of mind which is always material to a charge of this character where intent or frame of mind is an issue. He also said: The witness, Harrelson, has testified that Mr. Vlahovich on one occasion ... in discussing the killing of this other person, Roy, that the defendant Vlahovich said `Well, there was this one and there was several others'  words to this effect  `Several others and I haven't missed yet.' Now, that is of course evidence that the People are entitled to introduce and we couldn't introduce it in a vacuum, anyway. We would have to introduce it under the circumstances in which that conversation came about. The motion was denied. Harrelson's testimony was submitted to the jury under a People's instruction limiting its application to whether it showed Vlahovich was familiar with or possessed the means allegedly used in the Simpson murder, showed he possessed knowledge that may have been useful or necessary to its commission, and showed the circumstances under which he made admissions, if any, to Harrelson. Harrelson testified as follows: He told Vlahovich he and an associate named Roy, who was in a federal penitentiary, had placed $197,000 in a safety deposit box in Rio de Janeiro. Vlahovich told him he would be foolish if he did not have Roy rubbed out, and offered to split the money with him. He offered to kill Roy first for $47,000 and then for $35,000, half to be paid in advance, the remainder to be paid after the murder. When Harrelson asked Vlahovich if he thought he could take care of the job, Vlahovich replied: Well, there is this one. There have been several others and I haven't missed yet. Vlahovich said he had a man in town whose fee would be $500 even if he did not kill Roy. During a discussion on July 14 regarding payment of the money, Vlahovich said, The guy's already killed. In the same conversation Harrelson said, If the son of a bitch is just shot down in the street or something like that, it is going to be pretty obvious, and Vlahovich replied, You leave that to us. On July 28 Vlahovich said: My motto is satisfy the customer. It's not a favor I am doing. I am getting paid for everything. You will be satisfied. Don't worry about it. The way this disappearance act  you know what I mean. When Harrelson sought assurance he was the man for the job, Vlahovich answered, You have my word for it. On July 30 Harrelson exhibited to Vlahovich what purported to be a certified cashier's check for $17,500 and told him that If this thing goes off right, and God help you if it don't, he would earn his money. Vlahovich replied: Don't worry about God helping me. I'll help myself. Vlahovich told Harrelson he never talked on the guys that he worked for, that he would go to the gas chamber first. He also said: But these things really cost you. Every Tom, Dick and Harry can't do it. [32] Vlahovich argues, first, that he was entrapped into making the statements attributed to him by Harrelson. This contention is unsound, for it was he who suggested that Roy be rubbed out. It cannot, therefore, be said that he was entrapped. ( People v. Benford, 53 Cal.2d 1, 10 [7, 8] [345 P.2d 928]; cf. People v. Atchley, 53 Cal.2d 160, 171 [346 P.2d 764].) [33] There is likewise no merit in Vlahovich's contention that Harrelson's testimony was improperly received in rebuttal. He did not object in the trial court to its reception on this ground; therefore he may not do so on appeal. ( People v. Wein, supra, 50 Cal.2d 383, 407 [37]; People v. Carter, 48 Cal.2d 737, 754 [20] [312 P.2d 665]; cf. People v. Fitzgerald, 56 Cal.2d 855, 861 [4] [17 Cal. Rptr. 129, 366 P.2d 481]; People v. Chessman, supra, 52 Cal.2d 467, 493 [15].) [34] Finally, Vlahovich contends that the tape recordings were inaudible and unintelligible. The jury had heard the testimony of Vlahovich and Harrelson and were in a position to identify their voices. The recordings were received for the proper purpose of corroborating Harrelson's testimony. ( People v. Vetri, 178 Cal. App.2d 385, 395 [9] [2 Cal. Rptr. 795].) Therefore, it was not a proper ground to exclude them for the reason that they were partially inaudible. ( People v. Jackson, 125 Cal. App.2d 776, 779 [4a], [5] [271 P.2d 196].)