Opinion ID: 2575291
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Conversation between Dennis Elliott and defendant

Text: As noted above, Dennis Elliott, who previously had supervised defendant at ESL, described at trial a conversation he had with defendant in March or April 1986. Elliott had reported to defendant what Elliott had heard concerning defendant's conduct toward some girl, and had urged defendant to stop harassing her at work. Defendant had responded by expressing anger and defiance. Prior to Elliott's testimony regarding his conversation with defendant, defendant objected that neither what Elliott had heard from other persons, nor his conversation with defendant years before the charged crimes, was relevant to defendant's state of mind on February 16, 1988, and that the testimony was unduly prejudicial under Evidence Code section 352. The trial court overruled this objection, stating that testimony concerning what Elliott had heard about defendant chasing some girl was being offered solely to explain why Elliott spoke to defendant. Although the record is somewhat ambiguous, it appears the court also ruled that the testimony of the conversation between defendant and Elliott was relevant and not unduly prejudicial or time consuming under section 352. Defendant contends that what Elliott heard from others about defendant chasing some girl was hearsay. He also contends that Elliott's conversation with defendant was irrelevant because it occurred two years before the murders and did not imply any threat to kill anyone or to damage ESL property. Defendant did not make a hearsay objection below, nor did he argue that the conversation was irrelevant because it did not threaten violence or damage. Therefore, these claims are forfeited and, moreover, are without merit, as are his remaining relevance claims. As the trial court observed, testimony regarding what Elliott heard was not hearsay because it was not offered for its truth. It was relevant to explain why Elliott had a conversation with defendant. Defendant's defiant response to Elliott's advice that he just do his job and avoid hassling a female coworker was relevant to defendant's state of mind, and to the prosecutor's theory that defendant acted on February 16 in retaliation for perceived wrongs by ESL and Laura Black. In addition, the prosecution properly was permitted to demonstrate the circumstances that led over time to defendant's termination, and ultimately to his attack on ESL.