Opinion ID: 821522
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Judge Stromwall’s testimony

Text: The prosecution presented evidence that the day before the murders, defendant, accompanied by Michael Dominguez, visited a lawyer named Max Herman, from whom defendant may have obtained a gun. To bolster his point that defendant used people without disclosing his purpose, Robert Homick presented the testimony of retired Superior Court Judge Clarence Stromwall, a longtime friend of Herman with whom he had worked when they were both members of the Los Angeles Police Department. Homick hoped to show that even Herman, who Stromwall agreed was “a streetwise person,” could be duped by defendant into helping him engage in illegal activity. Defendant‟s counsel objected. He argued 61 the evidence was being used to show defendant‟s bad character “for deception and deceit.” The trial court overruled the objection. Defendant contends the Stromwall testimony constituted impermissible character evidence. (Evid. Code, § 1101, subd. (a).) Specifically, he asserts “it was improper to admit Judge Stromwall‟s opinion of Max Herman‟s character trait of honesty . . . to prove . . . that Max Herman did not give a gun to [defendant] . . . with knowledge that the gun was going to be used in a crime.” Defendant‟s objection to Stromwall‟s testimony in the trial court, however, was not that it showed Herman‟s specific conduct in conformity to his character trait for honesty, but that it showed defendant‟s bad character as deceitful and manipulative. Therefore, defendant has forfeited the claim he now attempts to advance on appeal. (Evid. Code, § 353; People v. Ramos (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1133, 1171.) In any event, the claim lacks merit. It is clear from the record that the purpose of the evidence was to show defendant manipulated people for purposes of which they might not have been entirely aware, and not to prove that Herman acted in conformity with a particular character trait. To the extent defendant‟s complaint is that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the evidence under Evidence Code section 352, we find no abuse where, as the court noted, the evidence was strongly relevant to Robert Homick‟s defense as compared to any prejudice to defendant.