Opinion ID: 2357828
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Aggravating Evidence: Asserted Boyd Error

Text: Defendant contends the trial court erred in admitting his rap lyrics as aggravating evidence. Defendant's authorship of the lyrics was undisputed. They were found in a notebook in his Jeep and bore his name and a copyright mark. [21] Defendant contends the lyrics, which speak in the first person about shooting police officers, should have been excluded as nonstatutory aggravating evidence. The Attorney General responds: (1) Defendant failed to object on this ground below; (2) the lyrics were properly admitted as aggravating evidence bearing on the circumstances of the crime, his attempted murders of the police officers, under section 190.3, factor (a); and (3) any error in their admission was harmless. (12) Evidence of a defendant's background, character, or conduct that is not probative of any specific sentencing factor is irrelevant to the prosecution's case in aggravation and therefore inadmissible. ( People v. Hawthorne (2009) 46 Cal.4th 67, 92 [92 Cal.Rptr.3d 330, 205 P.3d 245]; People v. Carter, supra, 30 Cal.4th 1166, 1202; People v. Boyd (1985) 38 Cal.3d 762, 773-774 [215 Cal.Rptr. 1, 700 P.2d 782].) Aggravating evidence must pertain to the circumstances of the capital offense (§ 190.3, factor (a)), other violent criminal conduct by the defendant ( id., factor (b)) or prior felony convictions ( id., factor (c)); only these three factors, and the experiential or moral implications of the defendant's age ( id., factor (i)), are properly considered in aggravation of penalty. [Citations.] Evidence offered as rebuttal to defense evidence in mitigation, however, . . . need not relate to any specific aggravating factor. [Citations.] ( People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 108-109 [17 Cal.Rptr.3d 710, 96 P.3d 30].) The prosecution had sought to introduce the lyrics in the guilt phase. However, the court excluded them on the ground their probative value would be substantially outweighed by their prejudicial effect. (Evid. Code, § 352.) In the penalty phase, the prosecution again moved to introduce the lyrics in its case-in-chief. The court informed counsel it was inclined to admit them. Defense counsel objected, saying it's nothing but lyrics basically. And it could be interpreted very prejudicially .... He added: Most of those things were written years ago and doesn't necessarily mean any of this was planned. The objection was overruled. Defendant now claims the lyrics should have been excluded in that they were not relevant to any of the factors in aggravation listed in Penal Code section 190.3. The Attorney General contends that defendant failed to object on this ground in the trial court. Defendant responds: [T]rial counsel made a clumsily phrased objection. However, the nature of the objection was such that both the court and prosecutor were adequately noticed of its legal grounds. (13) Under California law, error in admitting evidence may not be the basis for reversing a judgment or setting aside a verdict unless `an objection to or a motion to exclude or to strike the evidence ... was timely made and so stated as to make clear the specific ground of the objection or motion ....' (Evid. Code, § 353, subd. (a), italics added.) `In accordance with this statute, we have consistently held that the defendant's failure to make a timely and specific objection on the ground asserted on appeal makes that ground not cognizable. [Citations.]' ( People v. Seijas (2005) 36 Cal.4th 291, 302 [30 Cal.Rptr.3d 493, 114 P.3d 742].) Although no `particular form of objection' is required, the objection must `fairly inform the trial court, as well as the party offering the evidence, of the specific reason or reasons the objecting party believes the evidence should be excluded, so the party offering the evidence can respond appropriately and the court can make a fully informed ruling.' ([ People v. ] Partida [(2005)] 37 Cal.4th [428,] 435 [35 Cal.Rptr.3d 644, 122 P.3d 765].) ( People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 354 [75 Cal.Rptr.3d 289, 181 P.3d 105].) Here the court did make `a fully informed ruling' on the ground defendant now asserts, that the lyrics were not relevant to any of the factors in aggravation listed in Penal Code section 190.3. In the course of overruling defendant's objection, it explained: It seems to me it's relevant to the circumstances of the crime. It goes to the state of mind, his attitude towards the police, his attitude toward crime, attitude toward carrying weapons. Even if it was written in 1991, they were updated, and I think he was carrying them currently. [¶] Weighing them under 352, I think that the probative value . . . outweigh[s] the prejudice. Accordingly, we will review the ruling. (14) Whether a defendant murdered without remorse bears significantly on the moral decision whether a greater punishment, rather than a lesser, should be imposed. [Citation.] ( People v. Gonzalez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1179, 1232 [275 Cal.Rptr. 729, 800 P.2d 1159]; accord, People v. Ramos (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1133, 1164 [64 Cal.Rptr.2d 892, 938 P.2d 950].) Evidence that reflects directly on the defendant's state of mind contemporaneous with the capital murder is relevant under section 190.3, factor (a), as bearing on the circumstances of the crime. [Citations.] ( People v. Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1154.) It bears repeating that it is evidence of the defendant's state of mind at the time of the murder that is admissible under factor (a). We have held that postcrime evidence of remorselessness, for example, does not fit within any statutory sentencing factor, and thus should not be urged as aggravating. ( People v. Pollock (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1153, 1184 [13 Cal.Rptr.3d 34, 89 P.3d 353]; Gonzalez, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 1232.) The rap lyrics certainly express a remorseless attitude toward murder. Nevertheless, defendant contends they were inadmissible evidence of his state of mind for two reasons. First, lyrics are an art form. He urges that views expressed in a work of art are not necessarily those of the artist. Second, even if the lyrics expressed his views at the time he wrote them, they may have changed by the time of the murder. The existence of benign explanations does not stand as a bar to admissibility. In ruling on defendant's motion, the court would ordinarily consider alternative explanations in conducting an Evidence Code section 352 analysis. However, we need not resolve the admissibility question because there is no reasonable possibility that any error in admitting the lyrics was prejudicial. The jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant had committed a murder and four attempted murders. The crimes were particularly distressing, with one victim shot in the eye, another permanently paralyzed, and two policemen attacked in the line of duty. The jury also learned that defendant repeatedly used juveniles as his agents to commit violent offenses. In light of this evidence, it strains credulity to suggest that the jury was improperly influenced by learning of defendant's foray into music publishing. Moreover, the prosecutor did not refer to the lyrics in her penalty phase argument.