Opinion ID: 1372628
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Propriety of Prosecution's Evidence Regarding Aggravating Factors.

Text: (39) Defendant contends that the prosecution, over his objection, introduced through Dr. Soltz's testimony character evidence that was inadmissible because it was general in nature and did not relate to any statutory aggravating factor. The record reveals no objection on that ground. Rather, the prosecution's rebuttal witness, Dr. Soltz, stated that defendant had been arrested for attempted robbery. Defendant found this testimony misleading because the alleged crime was never offered as aggravating evidence in the prosecution's case-in-chief. In other words, the objection was to improper rebuttal testimony. Defendant moved for a mistrial and to strike the evidence; both motions were denied, but the court admonished the jury not to treat Dr. Soltz's statement as evidence that defendant had indeed attempted to commit a crime; rather, the jury could consider the statements only in evaluating the quality of the psychologist's opinion regarding defendant. The court's admonition was adequate.
(40) Defendant also maintains that Dr. Soltz's testimony was improper rebuttal insofar as it reflected on defendant's character and his lack of remorse. We treat the first contention on the merits, for as we have explained, defendant raised it at trial. Defendant's penalty phase witness, Dr. Rath, testified that the murders were out of character. The implication was that defendant, though troubled, was not as violent as the crimes would suggest. The prosecution was entitled to try to undermine defendant's claim of good character with expert testimony that the crimes were in character. ( People v. Mitcham, supra, 1 Cal.4th 1027, 1071-1072; People v. Fierro (1991) 1 Cal.4th 173, 237 [3 Cal. Rptr.2d 426, 821 P.2d 1302].) (41) We understand defendant to claim that by eliciting Dr. Soltz's statement, the prosecutor unconstitutionally called attention to defendant's failure to testify at trial. ( Griffin v. California, supra, 380 U.S. 609, 615 [14 L.Ed.2d 106, 110].) Defendant, however, did not object on any ground to Dr. Soltz's statement that defendant appeared to show no remorse, much less on the ground of Griffin. And we discern no reason to conclude that an objection and subsequent admonition by the court to the jury would not have cured any harm. Therefore we will not consider on appeal defendant's contentions that the testimony was improper rebuttal under state law and amounted to a violation of due process of law. ( People v. Mincey, supra, 2 Cal.4th 408, 446.)