Opinion ID: 1207047
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Statement to Deputy Parsons

Text: (6a) Defendant contends the trial court prejudicially erred in admitting evidence of the statement defendant made to Deputy Sheriff Parsons: Yeah, and I'll kill a lot more, too, and you may be first on my list. Before Deputy Parsons' testimony in front of the jury, an in camera hearing was held on the admissibility of the statement. Counsel objected on the grounds that the statement was solicited by the deputy in violation of Massiah and Miranda, that it was ambiguous and did not constitute a threat or admission. The court ruled that there had been no interrogation by Deputy Parsons and that the statement was admissible as an admission. Defense counsel then sought to have the last portion excluded  the statement you may be first on my list. The court denied the request on the ground that the entire statement was needed to show its essence. Defendant does not challenge the court's finding of no interrogation. He contends only that the statement was too ambiguous to constitute an admission. The trial court properly rejected defendant's contention. Even though no Evidence Code section 352 objection was raised, the court would not have abused its discretion in admitting the evidence over such an objection. Although defendant did not mention any specific victims, he did admit to having killed someone. Defendant's reliance on People v. Allen (1976) 65 Cal. App.3d 426 [135 Cal. Rptr. 276] is misplaced because the statement there required too many levels of speculation to be construed as an admission of guilt. [12] The statement here, by contrast, required no speculation to connect it to the issue of whether defendant had killed Mrs. Buchanan.