Opinion ID: 2623326
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Testimony about defendant's practice with a buck knife

Text: During cross-examination, defendant indicated he at one time had carried a buck knife and had told people he practiced with it. He denied having this knife in his possession during the events leading to the present charges, however. In response to the prosecutor's question about how he used to practice with the knife, defendant explained that he would grab the knife from his pocket and open it as fast as he could. When defendant was then asked to describe this knife, defense counsel objected on relevancy grounds and the trial court sustained the objection. On further cross-examination, defendant said he took a knife with him when he went to see June Rice about getting more drugs. The prosecutor asked defendant where he got this knife, and defendant replied that it came from Marie Baker's kitchen. The following exchange then took place: Prosecutor: Well, you have some familiarity with knives, didn't you? Defendant: Not a specialist, I'm not, different than a steak knife. Prosecutor: Well, you used to practice with your buck knife? Defendant: Not competition that I was preparing for, if you understand what I mean. Defense counsel objected that this line of questioning was not relevant, but the trial court overruled the objection without comment. Defendant continued, I wasn't practicing to kill somebody, if that's what you're trying to ask. The prosecutor then inquired, What did the knife look like? Defendant replied with a detailed description of his buck knife, including the length of the blade. The trial court interrupted the cross-examination, however, to ask defendant if he was describing the knife he got from Baker's kitchen. When defendant indicated he thought the prosecutor was asking him to describe the buck knife he used to carry, the trial court clarified that the prosecutor's question related to the knife taken from Baker's residence. After the prosecutor confirmed the trial court's understanding of the question, defendant described that knife as a regular kitchen-set knife with a black handle. Defendant asserts that the prosecutor's questioning about the buck knife was misconduct and that the trial court, by overruling defense counsel's relevancy objection to this questioning, violated state evidentiary law and federal constitutional guarantees of fair trial, due process, fundamental fairness, and reliability of verdicts. No evidence is admissible except relevant evidence. (Evid.Code, ง 350.) `Relevant evidence' means evidence, including evidence relevant to the credibility of a witness ..., having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action. (Evid.Code, ง 210; People v. Alcala (1992) 4 Cal.4th 742, 797, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 432, 842 P.2d 1192.) Accordingly, a witness may not be examined on matters that are irrelevant to the issue in the case. ( People v. Mayfield, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 755, 60 Cal. Rptr.2d 1, 928 P.2d 485.) To the extent defendant's claim of prosecutorial misconduct is based on the prosecutor's question that elicited the response from defendant describing his buck knife, there was no impropriety. The prosecutor was asking defendant to describe the knife used in the charged crimes, the relevance of which cannot be called into question. The prosecutor is not to be faulted for defendant's misunderstanding of the question, which the trial court quickly clarified in any event. As to the prosecutor's question about defendant's having formerly practiced with his buck knife, that was also proper. Defendant argues that evidence of his past practice was irrelevant because there was no evidence he used a buck knife to stab the victims. Although there was no direct evidence the murder weapon was a buck knife, the testimony on this issue was inconclusive and therefore did not foreclose that possibility. For example, Marie Baker testified that the knife defendant left on the kitchen sink after the stabbings was one she had never seen before. Moreover, evidence of defendant's earlier efforts to perfect his ability to quickly retrieve and open a pocketknife tends to undermine defendant's version of his attack on the victims as an unthinking response to being startled first by James Rumsey and then by Helen Rumsey. Nor did the trial court err by not prohibiting the line of questioning under Evidence Code section 352 as more prejudicial than probative. The inquiry was relevant under applicable standards, as previously discussed. The trial court could reasonably conclude that any danger of prejudice in portraying defendant as having a propensity for violence did not substantially outweigh this probative value, and thus the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to exclude the evidence under Evidence Code section 352.