Opinion ID: 1152592
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Boxer shorts.

Text: (7a) Defendant contends trial counsel were incompetent in failing to move to exclude from evidence a pair of bloody boxer shorts found inside some blue jeans that were seized from defendant's residence pursuant to a search warrant. Defendant claims counsel should have moved to exclude the evidence on the ground an inadequate chain of custody had been established. (8) The rules for establishing chain of custody are as follows: `The burden on the party offering the evidence is to show to the satisfaction of the trial court that, taking all the circumstances into account including the ease or difficulty with which the particular evidence could have been altered, it is reasonably certain that there was no alteration. [¶] The requirement of reasonable certainty is not met when some vital link in the chain of possession is not accounted for, because then it is as likely as not that the evidence analyzed was not the evidence originally received. Left to such speculation the court must exclude the evidence. [Citations.] Conversely, when it is the barest speculation that there was tampering, it is proper to admit the evidence and let what doubt remains go to its weight.' ( People v. Diaz (1992) 3 Cal.4th 495, 559 [11 Cal. Rptr.2d 353, 834 P.2d 1171], quoting People v. Riser (1956) 47 Cal.2d 566, 580-581 [305 P.2d 1]; see also People v. Williams (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1112, 1134 [259 Cal. Rptr. 473, 774 P.2d 146].) (7b) The decision whether to object to evidence at trial is a matter of tactics and, because of the deference accorded such decisions on appeal, will seldom establish that counsel was incompetent. ( People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1121 [36 Cal. Rptr.2d 235, 885 P.2d 1]; People v. Freeman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 450, 490-491 [34 Cal. Rptr.2d 558, 882 P.2d 249, 31 A.L.R.5th 888].) The record shows that at trial, Detective Kushner testified that he personally recovered the blue jeans and boxer shorts from defendant's house when he executed the search warrant. He noted that he only listed the jeans in the return to the search warrant, and that when he examined the jeans at the crime laboratory, he discovered the boxer shorts inside them. As defendant points out, however, at the preliminary hearing, Kushner testified that he did not personally seize the jeans during the search of defendant's residence. Rather, Kushner testified that during the search of defendant's home, another deputy handed him a paper bag containing the jeans found in defendant's residence, and Kushner found the boxer shorts inside the jeans when he and Detective Morck delivered the paper bag to the crime laboratory. A written sheriff's department report stated that Detective Morck submitted to the crime laboratory a bag containing the jeans and boxer shorts, and the receipt number given these items matched the receipt on the jeans and boxer shorts. A criminalist testified that the blood on the boxer shorts was consistent with the blood of victim Edwin Marriott, but not with defendant's blood. We do not see a strong claim that counsel would have prevailed in excluding the shorts on chain of custody grounds. Although the identity of the deputy who actually seized the blue jeans from defendant's home is somewhat uncertain on this record, there does not appear to be much question that the sheriff's deputies seized the jeans from defendant's home during the search and that thereafter Detective Kushner found the bloodstained boxer shorts inside the jeans when he turned the evidence over to the crime laboratory. Defendant identified the jeans as his. Even if we concluded defendant is correct that there was a flaw in the chain of custody, the record does not establish that counsel were incompetent in failing to object on this ground to the admission of the evidence. [T]he mere fact that counsel, had he [or she] chosen another path, `might' have convinced the court to issue a favorable evidentiary ruling, is not enough to carry defendant's burden of demonstrating [incompetence].... ( People v. Jennings (1991) 53 Cal.3d 334, 379 [279 Cal. Rptr. 780, 807 P.2d 1009].) Rather, as we have explained, a conviction will not be reversed unless the record on appeal demonstrates counsel had no rational purpose for the failure to object, and the failure was prejudicial. ( People v. Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 1121; People v. Zapien, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 980.) As we observed in People v. Diaz, supra, 3 Cal.4th 495, it is common and proper for counsel to stipulate to the chain of custody. ( Id. at p. 560.) Flaws in the chain are often mere technical omissions that competent counsel may consider unworthy of extended debate. ( Ibid. ) In fact, an objection on chain of custody grounds may be less productive for defendant than a decision to permit the prosecutor to establish a shoddy chain of custody that can be pointed out to the jury in the hope of giving rise to a reasonable doubt. We conclude defendant has failed to show counsel were incompetent for omitting to move to suppress the boxer shorts on chain of custody grounds. Defendant also faults counsel for failing to argue to the jury that the evidence of the boxer shorts was unreliable. We reject the claim. Counsel did seek to undermine the impact of the boxer shorts evidence during cross-examination of prosecution witnesses by establishing that the shorts were actually discovered in the crime laboratory, not in defendant's home, and by eliciting testimony that the blood on the shorts was consistent with the blood of four million residents of Los Angeles County. The impeachment value of these points was relatively slight, however. We cannot fault defense counsel for failing to argue the matter in closing, when the primary defense was that defendant committed the homicides but lacked the mental state necessary to establish murder because of gross excess in ingesting drugs. (See People v. Freeman, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 499 [difficult to defend simultaneously on grounds of total innocence and lack of intent].)