Opinion ID: 2572600
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Challenged Evidence

Text: On appeal, defendant argues the trial court erred by admitting over his objection four items of gun-related evidence. The three items of physical evidence  a Ruger pistol, an unloaded rifle, and some .22-caliber cartridges  were seized by police in searches conducted soon after the Anderson Lounge crimes. Each of the three items of physical evidence was found in a location closely associated with defendant. The fourth piece of evidence was defendant's statement, made almost two weeks before the crimes to a woman for whom he was then working, that he kept a loaded .22 in his pickup.
On July 21, 1993, in searching Karen Grabenstatter's trailer home where defendant was living at the time of the crimes, police found a .22-caliber Ruger pistol. At trial, defendant's former girlfriend, Margaret Alcock, with whom he had lived until May 1993, was asked if she had had any pistols during the time she and defendant lived together. Defense counsel objected to evidence of the pistol, arguing that Alcock's answer was not relevant and highly prejudicial whether or not the District Attorney is trying to get into the case-in-chief an uncharged crime. Relying on defendant's denial, at the hearing on his motion to suppress evidence, that he had owned or possessed the strongbox found in Grabenstatter's storage shed, the prosecutor argued that the Ruger pistol was admissible because it, like the strongbox belonging to Alcock, was found at Grabenstatter's trailer home where defendant was staying at the time of the crimes. By connecting Alcock's Ruger pistol to defendant, the prosecutor sought to strengthen the link between defendant and Alcock's strongbox with its bar robbery proceeds  rubber-banded bundles of twenty-five $1 bills and coins in G.A.M.E. wrappers. The trial court limited the prosecutor's inquiry to whether Alcock could identify as hers the pistol and the strongbox and jewelry found in it, cautioning the prosecutor not to ask if these items had been taken without Alcock's permission. She testified accordingly.
On July 22, 1993, Sergeant York seized defendant's pickup truck, searched it, and found an unloaded .22-caliber rifle with a missing magazine. When, at trial, the prosecutor asked Margaret Alcock if she could identify a photograph of that rifle, the defense objected that even if Alcock did not testify that her rifle had been stolen, the jury could infer that defendant had stolen it from her. The trial court overruled the objection. Alcock identified the rifle in the photograph as hers. The defense renewed its objection, which the trial court again overruled.
During the testimony of Candida Kelly, whose roof defendant was replacing during July when he committed the bar crimes, the prosecution asked her about an incident on July 2, 1993, when defendant accompanied her to the bank to cash a $1,900 check to pay for roofing materials. As she left the bank, Kelly told defendant, Hey, if you see anybody take my purse, go after them. The defense objected unsuccessfully, arguing the questioning would elicit evidence of a different uncharged crime. [2] According to Kelly, defendant replied, I don't have to run after anybody, I carry a loaded .22 in the pickup. When Kelly asked why, defendant replied, What good is it carrying an unloaded gun?
Defendant notes that Sergeant York testified that, on July 21, 1993, during a search of defendant's Redding apartment, he seized eleven .22-caliber long-rifle cartridges from an ashtray on a coffee table. Defendant contends that this evidence was admitted over his objection. He is wrong. Before York was asked about the cartridges, the defense reiterated its suppression claim, which was directed solely to the seizure of the paper grocery bag and its contents from the apartment. York then testified, without objection, that he seized the cartridges. The defense objected only to admitting photographs showing where the cartridges were found, and that objection was overruled.