Opinion ID: 1179776
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Threat to Kill Barger.

Text: Officer Llano testified that after arresting defendant in connection with the shooting incident of August 14, 1981, he placed defendant and another suspect in the backseat of his patrol car and tape-recorded their conversation. On the recording, according to Llano, defendant threatened to return and kill Barger. (29) Defendant complains that evidence of the threat against Barger should have been excluded because it was not included in the statutory notice of aggravating evidence filed by the prosecution. (See ง 190.3.) The error, he asserts, violated his rights to a reliable penalty determination under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. However, while defendant objected to this testimony on hearsay grounds, he never raised a notice objection. Hence, the claim is waived on appeal. (See People v. Johnson, supra, 6 Cal.4th 1, 51; People v. Clark (1990) 50 Cal.3d 583, 626, fn. 34 [268 Cal. Rptr. 399, 789 P.2d 127].) In any event, the contention lacks merit. The notice of aggravating evidence stated that the prosecution intended to introduce evidence of the circumstances underlying [defendant's] arrest for the August 14, 1981, shooting assault against Andrew Benanato, as referenced in Sacramento Police Department report #81-49647. The police report, which was subject to defense discovery, contained reference to the tape-recorded threat uttered by defendant after he was placed under arrest. [T]he prosecutor is not prevented from introducing all the circumstances of a duly noticed incident or transaction simply because each and every circumstantial fact was not recited therein. (See, e.g., People v. Howard (1988) 44 Cal.3d 375, 424-425 [243 Cal. Rptr. 842, 749 P.2d 279].) The notice is sufficient if it gives defendant `a reasonable opportunity' to prepare a defense to the allegations. ( Howard, supra, at p. 425.) ( People v. Pride, supra, 3 Cal.4th 195, 258.) Here, the notice of aggravation fairly apprised the defense of all the circumstances surrounding defendant's arrest for the August 14, 1981, incident which might be introduced in aggravation, and there was no unfair surprise. Defendant's claim of a notice violation must therefore be rejected.