Opinion ID: 1249738
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Evidence of Alleged Uncharged Offense.

Text: (12) Defendant contends the court erred in denying his motions to exclude Rooks's rebuttal testimony that he wanted to testify because defendant had given the order to have me hit, and for a mistrial based on that statement. Defendant also objected to a Department of Justice employee's statement that certain witnesses were placed in protective custody because of the death threats, and contends that the employee's statement compounded the error even though it was stricken. In an in camera discussion following Rooks's testimony, the prosecution contended the statement was admissible to show that Rooks's motive for testifying was not any inducement by the state but his dislike for defendant, based partly on defendant's alleged order. Defendant objected to Rooks's statement because it was improper character evidence offered via prior acts of misconduct and because it was substantially more prejudicial than probative. We examine the record to determine whether the court abused its discretion in admitting the statement. (See People v. Perez (1981) 114 Cal. App.3d 470, 477-478 [170 Cal. Rptr. 619]; Allen v. Toledo (1980) 109 Cal. App.3d 415, 419-421 [167 Cal. Rptr. 270].) We discern no such abuse. First, the statement was not improper character evidence. It tended to establish that Rooks's motive for testifying was resentment of defendant rather than any inducement the state had given him  and which defendant had emphasized to impeach Rooks's credibility. Thus, the case is similar to People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 19-20 [164 Cal. Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468], in which we rejected a like contention. As for defendant's contention that under Evidence Code section 352 and cases discussing the Federal Rules of Evidence the evidence was unduly prejudicial, we perceive the degree of prejudice as slight. The jury had already properly heard evidence that defendant was a member of a prison gang with strict rules prohibiting testimony against other members. Rooks's statement that defendant's death threat motivated him to testify was more of the same, but was also proper.