Opinion ID: 2582262
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Other Items of Evidence

Text: One witness testified that he observed defendant kick a high school custodian four or five times. The prosecutor asked whether defendant seemed to be enjoying it. The witness responded, Yeah. Defense counsel objected that the answer was speculation, irrelevant, and inadmissible under Evidence Code section 352. The court overruled the objection. Although defendant contends the court erred in overruling the objection, the court acted within its discretion. ( Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at pp. 1124-1125, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 235, 885 P.2d 1.) The witness testified that defendant seemed to enjoy kicking the custodian. Because the witness was a percipient witness, he spoke from personal observation. He was competent to testify that defendant's behavior and demeanor were consistent with enjoyment. A history of enjoyment in the infliction of pain is relevant at the penalty phase. Defendant also argues the question called for improper opinion evidence. He did not object on that basis at trial, and he may not make that argument on appeal. ( People v. Seijas (2005) 36 Cal.4th 291, 302, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 493, 114 P.3d 742.) Such an objection would have failed. Generally, a lay witness may not give an opinion about another's state of mind. However, a witness may testify about objective behavior and describe behavior as being consistent with a state of mind. Defendant objected to the evidence that he set fire to Tina Whaley's apartment, arguing it was a crime against property, not a crime of violence under section 190.3, factor (b). (See People v. Boyd (1985) 38 Cal.3d 762, 776, 215 Cal. Rptr. 1, 700 P.2d 782.) The court found that it involved the use or attempted use of force or violence to persons, and properly overruled the objection. The arson of Whaley's home could reasonably be considered an attempt to intimidate her by an implied threat of violence. ( People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 824, 42 Cal. Rptr.2d 543, 897 P.2d 481 [admitting evidence of car arson].) Moreover, the structure involved was an apartment building. Defendant's conduct put other residents and firefighters in physical danger. ( People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 392, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 272, 28 P.3d 34.)