Opinion ID: 2575997
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Alleged prosecutorial misconduct in eliciting testimony regarding defendant's gang affiliation and propensity for violence

Text: The prosecutor asked Doreen Westbrook to describe defendant's mood after he had used methamphetamine and they were driving from Sacramento to the rest stop where the murder occurred. Westbrook answered: He was in a maniacin' mood, he was spun. She defined spun as like you're rock and rollin' . . . don't care about nothing. She defined maniacin' as a state of mind that ends in violence with a person feeling [t]en feet tall and bulletproof. You do โ you do anything you want and you don't let nobody tell you no. You're above the law, you're above the rules, you break the rules, you do it just to see if you can get away with it. Westbrook also testified that she knew where the sound of the gunshot came from at the rest stop [b]ecause [defendant] had a gun when we left Sacramento. We were joking around about robbing people, he was in a maniacin' mood, I knew where the shot came from. Defendant accuses the prosecutor of misconduct by eliciting testimony from Westbrook that defendant was in a maniacin' mood the night of the murder. Defendant argues that the testimony was both improper opinion evidence of his propensity for violence and an irrelevant reference to his gang affiliation with the Sacramaniacs gang. Because defendant did not object to this testimony at trial, he is precluded from raising these issues on appeal. In any event, as explained below, defendant's arguments lack merit. Contrary to defendant's argument, Westbrook's testimony was not objectionable as improper lay opinion evidence. The testimony defined Westbrook's use of the term maniacin', which needed explanation because it lacked a commonly understood meaning. Westbrook's opinion about defendant's state of mind on the night of the murder was admissible because it was based on her perceptions and helped to better understand her testimony. (Evid.Code, ง 800, subd. (a); see also People v. Williams (1988) 44 Cal.3d 883, 914-915, 245 Cal.Rptr. 336, 751 P.2d 395.) Nor was Westbrook's testimony irrelevant. It was relevant because it described defendant's state of mind at the time of the murder. In addition, contrary to defendant's assertion, the jury would not have understood Westbrook's statement defining the word maniacin' as referring to defendant's affiliation with the gang called the Sacramaniacs. Her definition pertained to a state of mind, not a gang.