Opinion ID: 1172016
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Defendant's Threat to Kill a Guard

Text: (19) Defendant challenges the admission of his statement to a police officer that he would kill the first police officer to step inside his cell if he was not permitted to visit with his wife. Defendant claims that this statement was inadmissible, relying upon our opinion in People v. Boyd (1985) 38 Cal.3d 762 [215 Cal. Rptr. 1, 700 P.2d 782]. The Attorney General concedes the error, but argues it was harmless. In Boyd, the prosecution introduced evidence of the defendant's threats against juvenile hall counselors. The theory upon which the prosecution relied was that the threats proved the crime of inciting to riot. Defense counsel on cross-examination disagreed and moved to strike the evidence. The court denied the motion and instructed the jury not to consider the threats as aggravating factors unless they found that the prosecution proved incitement to riot beyond a reasonable doubt. On appeal, we concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support submitting such a charge to the jury. ( Id. at pp. 777-778.) As previously indicated, the Attorney General concedes Boyd error but argues that the evidence in question is so trivial when compared to [defendant's] crimes and the other proper evidence adduced at the penalty phase that the error was harmless. We agree. Defendant's threat was probably viewed by the jury as no more than heated frustration from being deprived of visits by his wife. It is virtually inconceivable that the jury would have reached a different penalty verdict had it not heard the evidence.