Opinion ID: 1122547
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The evidence satisfied Evidence Code section 210

Text: (13a) The central issue at trial was the identity of the person who fatally stabbed Maureen and Telesforo Bautista. The prosecution sought to establish that defendant had both the motive (fear of snitches) and the opportunity (time spent alone with the victims, and their trust of him) to commit the murders. The prosecution offered the Nash testimony in order to help establish the identity of the killer, insofar as the evidence suggested that: (1) defendant had a motive to kill Maureen; (2) defendant's state of mind could have led him to commit the killings; and (3) the Nash testimony corroborated the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. In contrast, the defense theory was that defendant was not the perpetrator of the killings, that he lacked the motive to commit the crimes in view of his close relationship with the victims, and that the killings more likely were committed by a third party, such as Larry Tom Whittington, who was involved in a lucrative drug operation and had no personal relationship with the victims. In determining the admissibility of the challenged evidence, we apply well-settled rules. (14) Only relevant evidence is admissible. (Evid. Code, § 350; People v. Babbitt (1988) 45 Cal.3d 660, 681 [248 Cal. Rptr. 69, 755 P.2d 253].) Relevant evidence is defined in Evidence Code section 210 as evidence having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action. The test of relevance is whether the evidence tends logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference to establish material facts such as identity, intent, or motive. ( People v. Daniels, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 856; People v. Alcala (1984) 36 Cal.3d 604, 631 [205 Cal. Rptr. 775, 685 P.2d 1126].) The trial court retains broad discretion in determining the relevance of evidence. ( People v. Babbitt, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 681.) (13b) The Nash testimony was relevant to demonstrate defendant's motive for killing the Bautistas and to establish premeditation, in view of defendant's frequently voiced hatred of snitches and his expressed fear that Maureen Bautista would snitch him off to Eddie Nash. The Nash testimony suggested that defendant's motive in killing the Bautistas was self-preservation  a desire to avoid having Nash, a man with a reputation for violence, learn of defendant's whereabouts and activities. In the absence of physical evidence linking defendant to the Bautista killings, the presence of a motive was particularly significant in this case. (See People v. Edelbacher (1989) 47 Cal.3d 983, 1027-1028 [254 Cal. Rptr. 586, 766 P.2d 1] [evidence of spousal rape charge of which defendant was acquitted held relevant to issue of motive in prosecution for murder of the spouse]; People v. Thompson (1988) 45 Cal.3d 86, 109 [246 Cal. Rptr. 245, 753 P.2d 37] [motive an important issue where defense asserts that defendant and victim had a good relationship].) We therefore discern no error in the trial court's determination that the Nash testimony was relevant.