Opinion ID: 2585503
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Alleged Use of Improper Rebuttal Evidence

Text: Following presentation of the defense case in mitigation, the prosecution proposed to call Sandra Thomas to testify that she was a friend of defendant and that, around the time of the crimes, he told her he would rob people of their cars and strip them for parts. Specifically, she would testify that defendant mentioned a Nissan truck (such as Christina Ramirez drove) and a Suzuki (such as Danny Coria drove). Defendant objected, claiming this evidence was not proper rebuttal evidence, but the trial court overruled the objection and allowed the evidence to be admitted. Defendant contends this ruling violated his rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as analogous provisions of the California Constitution. In particular, defendant complains the prosecution was allowed to introduce additional substantive evidence of his guilt, in the guise of rebuttal evidence, that was more properly part of its guilt phase case-in-chief. By contrast, he was denied fundamental fairness because he was barred from introducing evidence that might have fostered a lingering doubt as to his guilt. ( In re Gay (1998) 19 Cal.4th 771, 813-814, 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 765, 968 P.2d 476 [Evidence intended to create a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt is not relevant to the circumstances of the offense or the defendant's character and record].) We explained the scope of rebuttal in People v. Carter (1957) 48 Cal.2d 737, 753-754, 312 P.2d 665: In a sense all evidence that tends to establish the defendant's guilt over his protestations of innocence rebuts the defendant's case, but it is not all rebuttal evidence within the purpose of section 1093, subdivision 4 [now section 1093, subdivision (d) ]. The purpose of the restriction in that section is to assure an orderly presentation of evidence so that the trier of fact will not be confused; to prevent a party from unduly magnifying certain evidence by dramatically introducing it late in the trial; and to avoid any unfair surprise that may result when a party who thinks he has met his opponent's case is suddenly confronted at the end of trial with an additional piece of crucial evidence. Thus proper rebuttal evidence does not include a material part of the case in the prosecution's possession that tends to establish the defendant's commission of the crime. It is restricted to evidence made necessary by the defendant's case in the sense that he has introduced new evidence or made assertions that were not implicit in his denial of guilt. [Citations.] A defendant's reiterated denial of guilt and the principal facts that purportedly establish it does not justify the prosecution's introduction of new evidence to establish that which defendant would clearly have denied from the start. (See also People v. Daniels (1991) 52 Cal.3d 815, 859, 277 Cal.Rptr. 122, 802 P.2d 906, quoting Carter with approval.) Rebuttal evidence, however, `must be specific, and evidence presented or argued as rebuttal must relate directly to a particular incident or character trait defendant offers in his own behalf.' ( People v. Fierro (1991) 1 Cal.4th 173, 238, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 426, 821 P.2d 1302.) The admission of evidence in rebuttal is a matter left to the sound discretion of the trial court. [Citation.] The court's decision in this regard will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of `palpable abuse.' ( People v. Hart (1999) 20 Cal.4th 546, 653, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 132, 976 P.2d 683.) Some of Thomas's testimony properly rebutted mitigating evidence defendant introduced. For example, Dr. Kaser-Boyd testified that defendant told her that he got this job in construction and was hopeful that he could apprentice himself and learn construction that way. She said that defendant told her he had been working about one month prior to his arrest. This evidence tended to show defendant as a hardworking young man trying to improve himself by learning a trade. In rebuttal, Thomas testified that she was a close friend of defendant, close enough that defendant considered her a big sister. The following colloquy then occurred: Q. [by the prosecutor] During that time between 1987 and 1989, the day he got arrested or the time he got arrested, did you ever know him to work an honest job, anything like that? A. [by Sandra Thomas] No, sir. Q. Okay. Did he ever talk about working at all? A. No, sir. Q. Did he ever mention construction work that he was doing? A. Not at all. Q. Did you ever see him go to work or come back from work or anything like that? A. No. Thomas then testified that defendant had told her he stole cars and stripped them for their parts, which he would sell to make money. In the course of this conversation, he mentioned he had stolen a Nissan or a Suzuki. Once when she was with him, a woman drove by in a Suzuki and he said I'm going to get that bitch. He said, I'm jacking that. And that was his exact words. She said he seemed thrilled to be talking about it. Because Thomas's testimony responded to mitigating evidence suggesting defendant was a hardworking person, it was proper rebuttal and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting it. In addition, defendant points to testimony from Thomas that defendant disappeared for two weeks around the time Coria was shot and then reappeared looking scared and nervous, but holding $600 or $700. This evidence tended to show defendant was implicated in shooting Coria and stealing his Suzuki. We find this evidence was also properly admitted in rebuttal. After the prosecution presented evidence from Willie Woods that defendant was the man who actually shot Coria, the defense called William Palmer to the stand. Palmer, a probation officer, had interviewed Woods to prepare a probation report. He said Woods told him a person named Torrey committed the crime (i.e., probably Torrey Bennett). Thomas's evidence thus tended to rebut Palmer's testimony. In short, we find the trial court did not err in admitting this evidence, and the admission of Thomas's testimony in rebuttal did not deny defendant fundamental fairness or any other constitutional rights.