Opinion ID: 2581763
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Exclusion of Evidence Regarding Third Party Culpability

Text: During pretrial discovery, defendant obtained a copy of Detective Joseph Seeger's notes of a conversation with Randy, a recovered crackhead, to the effect that Andreapparently defendanthad cheated the ESD's by selling them baking soda instead of crack cocaine. Andre was `spray basing'using crack cocaine with PCP. The note stated: Hasn't heard of threats by ESD's but thinks they did it Puppet & Casper. Defendant sought discovery of all Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department records regarding cases or contacts with Puppet and Casper. The superior court ordered the discovery of their names, addresses, and telephone numbers. Defendant subsequently sought sanctions or dismissal for failure to preserve the information concerning whereabouts of Randy or to do any follow-up investigation about Puppet or Casper. He also moved in limine to exclude all evidence or references to his own dealing in or use of narcotics or to his membership in a gang. The People moved in limine to exclude rumor or hearsay evidence that the East Side Dukes were responsible for the killing. At the hearing on the sanctions motion, Detective Seeger testified that he was approached outside the Staten residence on October 13, 1990, by this young white male, somewhat disheveled and acting a little strange. He appeared to be under the influence of narcotics or alcohol. He identified himself as Randy and said that he knew defendant and some of his friends. He said that he had not heard of any pedo [ sic ], bullshit between defendant and the East Side Dukes. He knew that defendant and his friends were selling cocaine to gang members and occasionally defendant had stiffed them with some baking soda and/or some bunk dope, but although a few might be mad at him ... there was nothing that was overt. Randy did not think the gang had anything to do with the killings but if they did, then he named two guys by the name of Puppet and Casper, although he did not know them and could not even describe them. When asked for information about his address and how to contact him, [Randy] got rambling and uncooperative and walked off. Detective Seeger did not see Randy again. He subsequently investigated whether the East Side Dukes might have been involved, including contacting gang experts for advice, but found nothing indicating that the gang was responsible for the killings. With regard to the sanctions motion, the superior court determined that there was no improper failure to preserve or collect evidence. It deemed the evidence of Randy's statements inadmissible, on the ground that it would do nothing more than confuse issues and cause the jury to speculate on evidence that has little or no value. The superior court granted defendant's in limine motion to exclude all evidence or references to his drug dealing. With regard to the People's motion to exclude evidence concerning the East Side Dukes, defense counsel agreed that he would not refer to Randy or rumors on the street without first making an offer of proof outside the presence of the jury that the East Side Dukes were actually involved. He did not subsequently make such an offer of proof at trial. Defendant contends that the evidence of Randy's statements suggesting that members of the East Side Dukes might have killed the defendant's parents should have been admitted. We reject the claim of error. As a threshold matter, it is doubtful that the point has been preserved on appeal, in light of defendant's successful motion to exclude all evidence or reference to his own drug dealing and his failure to make an offer of proof concerning Randy's statement. In any event, it is without merit. Randy's statement was inadmissible hearsay, irrelevant, and unduly prejudicial. It provided no actual information concerning the ease; nor did it evince any personal knowledge whether the East Side Dukes killed the Statens. Randy merely speculated that two purported gang members he had never met might have committed the killings in retaliation for defendant's having burned them in a drug sale. Defendant also urges that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to renew his attempt to introduce Randy's statement. The claim fails in the absence of a showing that trial counsel's representation fell below a standard of reasonableness. He had obvious tactical reasons not to do so: the evidence was damaging to defendant's own credibility, to the extent that it identified him as a drug user and dealer. [4]