Opinion ID: 2387577
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence unrelated to the capital offense

Text: As noted, during the penalty phase, the prosecutor presented dozens of witnesses, many of whom were victims of defendant's prior criminal activity. During the course of their testimony, many of them described the lasting effect of their experiences. Defendant contends the trial court erred by failing to exclude this evidence as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. Prior to defendant's trial, the trial court granted defendant's motion in limine to exclude victim impact evidence concerning Catalina Correa's murder. After the prosecutor's penalty phase opening statement, defendant raised a number of concerns regarding the evidence the prosecutor intended to introduce. (14) The parties disagree as to whether defendant adequately objected to the introduction of evidence concerning the impact on victims other than Correa and Officer Ganz; [15] if defendant failed to object, this claim is forfeited on appeal. (Evid. Code, § 353, subd. (a); see, e.g., People v. Kelly, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 793.) Regardless of whether defendant's motion in limine or post-opening-statement objections encompassed the introduction of victim impact evidence related to his other crimes, and thus preserved the issue for appeal, such evidence was properly admitted. [16] The circumstances of uncharged violent criminal conduct, including its impact on the victims of that conduct, are admissible under section 190.3, factor (b). ( People v. Bramit, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 1241.) Citing Payne v. Tennessee, supra, 501 U.S. at page 830, footnote 2, defendant contends these victims did not simply testify about the impact of his crimes but improperly gave characterizations and opinions about him and his crimes. Not so. For example, although various victims described defendant as having cold dead eyes, almost like a shark's, or as being cold, empty (that witness also testified, when I looked into his eyes I saw death), or as having an evil look, these are not after-the-fact opinions about defendant or his crimes, but rather percipient witnesses' descriptions (albeit colorful) of his demeanor during the commission of the crimes. As fear may be an element of the crime of robbery (§ 211), testimony about how defendant caused the victims to fear him was relevant and not improper victim impact evidence. Defendant contends this victim impact evidence should have been excluded under Evidence Code section 352 as misleading, cumulative, or unduly inflammatory. Defendant has not demonstrated how any of the victim impact evidence was misleading. Moreover, the testimony regarding the residual fear or anxiety suffered by the robbery victims was brief and not unduly inflammatory or prejudicial. [17] To the extent defendant contends the prosecution's witnesses were cumulative to each other, he generally has forfeited this claim by failing to raise it in the trial court. [18] Moreover, although numerous witnesses testified, defendant committed numerous robberies, and the jury was entitled to hear about his extensive criminal history and the impact it had on his victims. Citing People v. Box (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1153, 1201 [99 Cal.Rptr.2d 69, 5 P.3d 130], defendant contends the victim impact evidence unfairly persuaded the jurors to find that he had committed these crimes. The trial court properly instructed the jury with CALJIC No. 8.87, which provided, Before a juror may consider any criminal activity as an aggravating circumstance in this case, a juror must first be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did in fact commit the activity. We presume the jury understood and followed this instruction. (See, e.g., People v. Butler, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 873.) In any event, the uncontested evidence at trial demonstrated defendant committed these prior crimes. For example, defendant contends the evidence implicating him in the pharmacy robbery was particularly weak, yet he was identified as the assailant and law enforcement personnel found, at his parents' residence, a ski mask and ammunition that matched those used in the pharmacy robbery.