Opinion ID: 1200797
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Introduction of Document Reflecting Defendant's Views on Christianity.

Text: At the penalty phase defendant testified that although he never intended to kill Lisa, he did intend to harm her. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked defendant about the significance of his written remarks regarding his views on Christianity in People's exhibit No. 34. Defendant had written, In my own case, nihilism seems to have been the inevitable result of being harried and tormented by Christians. Not Jews or Moslems, but lowly, filthy, rotten, contemptible Christians. Defendant testified that Lisa was one of the four Christians of a particular stripe (fundamentalist Christian) that had caused him the most trouble since [his] release from prison. He explained that when he and Lisa disagreed on theological matters, she would take the position that she was on God's side and [he] was on Satan's side. There was no defense objection to this line of questioning until the prosecutor asked, Who is Nietzsche?, in reference to several quotes of the German philosopher contained in the document. Defense counsel objected on grounds that the prosecutor was now getting into philosophical things that did not fall within the statutory aggravating factors. The prosecutor countered that the line of questioning was relevant to motive; the court agreed and overruled the objection. When the prosecutor next asked defendant whether one of the quotations from Nietzsche  characterizing Christianity as the one great curse and the one innermost perversion  expressed the way he felt about Lisa and her stripe of Christianity, defendant testified he wrote down the quote thinking it was an interesting commentary that, in a more generalized sense, was useful in helping him cope with the continual war he had been fighting for 30 years. The line of questioning was then dropped, and the document admitted into evidence the following day over defense counsel's renewed objection. (12a) Defendant contends that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to cross-examine him regarding the document, and in admitting it into evidence. He characterizes the references to Christianity therein as irrelevant and inherently prejudicial. We disagree. (13) Once the defense has presented evidence of circumstances admissible under [section 190.3,] factor (k) ... prosecution rebuttal evidence would be admissible as evidence tending to `disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.' (Evid. Code, § 210.) ( People v. Boyd (1985) 38 Cal.3d 762, 776 [215 Cal. Rptr. 1, 700 P.2d 782].) (12b) Notwithstanding the jury's guilt phase determination that this was a premeditated and intentional murder, defendant took the stand for the first time at the penalty phase and testified he never intended to kill Lisa, but only to harm her. Although he characterized his penned hatred of her stripe of Christianity as merely interesting commentary which he found useful in his continual war  the evidence was plainly relevant to rebut the penalty phase defense and reaffirm what loomed as a strong, contributing motive for this murder; defendant's bitter hatred and contempt of his ex-wife's affiliation with a fundamentalist Christian sect. In any case, it is not reasonably possible that this evidence prejudiced the penalty verdict. ( People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 448 [250 Cal. Rptr. 604, 758 P.2d 1135].) The jury had already considered numerous other documents and evidence at the guilt phase establishing defendant's scorn and hatred of religion and, in particular, the sect of Christianity to which Lisa belonged. All such evidence was generally relevant and admissible at the penalty phase as a circumstance[ ] of the crime of which defendant was convicted.... (§ 190.3, factor (a).) Finally, as noted, much of the prosecutor's cross-examination of defendant in this vein passed without defense objection.