Opinion ID: 2552553
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ruling Against Playing Videotape to Jury

Text: Defendant argues that the trial court erred in excluding as hearsay a videotape that he wished to introduce in mitigation. As mentioned, defendant introduced evidence at the penalty phase that he was classified as learning-disabled during his school years. He wished to introduce into evidence and play to the jury a videotape in which one Dr. Richard D. Lavoie (the record does not reveal his profession) lectures on learning disabilities to what the prosecution described as a panel of persons consisting of such people as parents and school psychologists. The prosecution moved in writing to exclude the 70-minute-long videotape as hearsay evidence. It explained to the trial court that in the recording Dr. Lavoie expresses some rather strong and arguably extreme view points in which he contends in essence that learning disability kids are not taught appropriately or [are] treated in a cruel, mean and insensitive manner by teachers ... and states for example that some of this type of conduct and treatment is in fact the norm. He impersonates teachers to show how they are mean to learning disability children (whether intentionally and/or unintentionally). [ķ] He contends learning disability children are taught by teachers who do not understand them or know how to deal with their learning disability problems. [ķ] ... [ķ] At the very end of the video tape there are a few brief comments by others although the tape consists mostly of his lectures and demonstrations to a panel of persons. The prosecution continued, To present the video tape would be simply to allow the defense to present a witness â Dr. Lavoie â to put forth some very controversial opinions based on a number of extremely dubious assumptions. (Apparently Dr. Lavoie believes that teachers of special education children do an incompetent job in many or most, if not all, cases.) At a hearing on the prosecution's motion, defendant replied that we're not proposing to play the entire videotape, but there are about 30 minutes where [Dr. Lavoie] gives examples of how some of the specific learning disabilities [cause the afflicted person to] view a certain situation ... and how that learning disability makes it difficult for that person to perform in a classroom and what the reaction is to that failure to perceive. In defendant's view, the jury would see a demonstration of a classroom-like situation with a person who ... is made to appear to have a learning disability and the tape would not be hearsay any more than, in place of having an expert [testifying] ... how a crane functions you ... have a videotape showing how a crane works. Defendant argued that such a demonstration is not subject to cross-examination. It's merely illustration. It doesn't give any kind of concrete information. Without viewing the videotape, the trial court ruled that its content was hearsay not subject to any exception, and excluded it. Defendant maintains on appeal that the trial court erred, under state evidentiary law and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution, in excluding the evidence as hearsay. Because [a] party cannot argue the court erred in failing to conduct an analysis it was not asked to conduct ( People v. Partida, supra, 37 Cal.4th 428, 435, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 644, 122 P.3d 765), the constitutional claims are, in all but one instance, forfeited. ( Ibid. ) The sole exception is defendant's due process claim, for it merely asserts that the trial court's ruling, insofar as wrong on grounds actually presented to that court, had the additional legal consequence of violating the Constitution. To that extent, defendant's constitutional argument is not forfeited on appeal. (See id. at pp. 433-439, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 644, 122 P.3d 765.) We find no state law error, and no due process violation. Attempting to play in court assertions and descriptions previously recorded on videotape or a similar medium constitutes an attempt to introduce hearsay evidence. ( People v. Jurado, supra, 38 Cal.4th 72, 129, 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 319, 131 P.3d 400; accord, People v. Monterroso (2004) 34 Cal.4th 743, 779, 22 Cal. Rptr.3d 1, 101 P.3d 956.) The trial court did not need to view the recording, because defendant's own description of its content at the hearing on the prosecution's motion established that the statements and dramatizations therein were being offered for the truth of the matter asserted (Evid. Code, § 1200, subd. (a)) â they would present Dr. Lavoie's view of how learning-disabled students and the teachers of such students tend to react in certain situations. As such, the videotaped content was inadmissible. ( Id., subd. (b).) Nor did defendant offer any possible exception under which the content might be introduced â his example involving the operation of a crane made plain that the videotape's content would be a substitute for testimony, but without any opportunity for cross-examination. Defendant's due process claim that the ruling denied him his constitutional right to present a defense also lacks merit. Ordinarily a criminal defendant's attempt to inflate garden-variety evidentiary questions into constitutional ones [will prove] unpersuasive. `As a general matter, the [application of the ordinary rules of evidence ... does not impermissibly infringe on a defendant's right to present a defense. [Citations.] Although completely excluding evidence of an accused's defense theoretically could rise to this level, excluding defense evidence on a minor or subsidiary point does not impair an accused's due process right to present a defense.' ( People v. Boyette (2002) 29 Cal.4th 381, 427-428, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 544, 58 P.3d 391.) There was no constitutional violation here. The videotape would have been hearsay not subject to cross-examination in violation of the Evidence Code. The court's ruling did not prevent defendant from presenting evidence consistent with the normal rules of evidence through live witnesses who are subject to cross-examination.