Opinion ID: 1200797
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evidence of Defendant's Hostility Toward Religion.

Text: (8a) Several of the documents admitted into evidence over defendant's objection revealed his extreme dislike of religion, and in particular, Christianity. Defendant contends that the court should have refused to admit the writings pertaining to [defendant's] personal philosophy and disdain for religion because they were irrelevant and were exceedingly prejudicial. `Relevant evidence' means evidence ... having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action. (Evid. Code, § 210.) As defense counsel himself put it below: The crux of the defense is degree of the homicide. Any evidence tending to establish a motive on defendant's part to kill his ex-wife was thus plainly relevant and probative to proving a premeditated, intentional first degree murder. At the time Lisa was killed, she was very involved with her church. Defendant's writings reflect that he held practicing Christians in extreme disdain and contempt. He felt himself at war with Christian society. The very fact of the victim's involvement in the church itself furnished one possible motive for the fatal shooting. Defendant wrote that he hoped to live long enough to see the end of religion. He identified the victim and her mother Ione as one of the gang of four Christians who have been my downfall, my worst enemies. They have robbed me of my children, stolen all my money, and sought almost endlessly to return me to prison. He identified the Christian Lisa, amongst others, as being totally without principle, without conscience, without mercy or any higher sensibility. Stupid, selfish, greedy, and vicious.... In my war against Christianity, I might logically start with these contemptible vermin. He described the victim and her mother as Evil incarnate and The Satanical Sisterhood. In one passage he wrote, Perhaps it is time that these Christian bandits got to know me better. (9) Evidence Code section 352 permits the trial court `to strike a careful balance between the probative value of the evidence and the danger of prejudice, confusion and undue time consumption.' [Citation.] The court's exercise of discretion in admitting or rejecting proffered evidence will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a manifest abuse of that discretion resulting in a miscarriage of justice. [Citations.] ( People v. Milner (1988) 45 Cal.3d 227, 239 [246 Cal. Rptr. 713, 753 P.2d 669].) (8b) While evidence of the type here in question obviously carried some potential for prejudice, it was patently relevant and probative to the prosecution's case-in-chief. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the documents. [4]