Opinion ID: 2509294
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Testimony Regarding Videotapes

Text: Defendant contends the trial court erred when it allowed Detective Price to testify about videotapes taken from defendant's bedroom that depicted him having sexual intercourse with consenting adult women. The actual videotapes were not admitted. Defendant objected that the testimony was irrelevant and, even if relevant, was more prejudicial than probative under Evidence Code section 352. He additionally objected that the evidence violated the best evidence rule. [28] `Relevant evidence' means evidence ... having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action. (Evid.Code, § 210.) We apply the deferential abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a trial court's ruling on a relevance objection. [Citations.] We discern no abuse of discretion here. ( People v. Kipp (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1100, 1123, 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 27, 33 P.3d 450.) Rauni Campbell testified that defendant told her on the morning after the murder that what he had done was so big and she would find out about it because they have a tape of me. Additionally, Detective Navarro testified that the search of defendant's apartment on Sunday morning was stopped when he saw a video camera facing the bed. Thus, the testimony was relevant to explain defendant's statement to Campbell; that is, whether any tapes, in fact, existed and if they depicted defendant and Nicole. They were also relevant to rebut the defense's claim that the body fluids found in defendant's bedroom and bathroom, which were consistent with oral copulation, could have come from other sexual partners of defendant, because the videotapes did not show acts of oral copulation. On this point, the evidence need not have been definitive as long as it had some tendency to establish the identity of the source of the fluids. ( People v. Garceau (1993) 6 Cal.4th 140, 177, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 664, 862 P.2d 664.) We also find no abuse of the trial court's discretion conferred by Evidence Code section 352. ( People v. Brown, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 576, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 145, 73 P.3d 1137.) As the trial court observed, there was already testimony from Ms. Campbell that she and defendant had engaged in sexual intercourse in his bedroom. Furthermore, the testimony about the tapes was neither graphic nor extensive. Defendant also objected to the testimony under the best evidence rule. Former Evidence Code section 1500 provided: Except as otherwise provided by statute, no evidence other than the original of a writing is admissible to prove the content of a writing. [29] For purposes of this section, a videotape is a writing. ( People v. Moran (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 398, 407-408, 114 Cal.Rptr. 413.) The purpose of the best evidence rule is to minimize the possibilities of misinterpretation of writings by requiring the production of the original writings themselves, if available. (Cal. Law Revision com. com., 29B pt. 4 West's Ann. Evid.Code (1995 ed.) foll. § 1500, p. 488.) Therefore, [t]he best evidence rule applies only when the contents of a writing are at issue. ( Hewitt v. Superior Court (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 923, 930, 85 Cal.Rptr. 493.) Conversely, [u]nless the content is in issue the best evidence rule does not come into play. ( People v. Marcus (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 367, 371, 107 Cal.Rptr. 264.) Where no dispute exists regarding the accuracy of the evidence received in lieu of the original writing, any error in admitting such evidence is harmless. ( People v. Bizieff (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1689, 1697-1698, 277 Cal.Rptr. 678.) In the instant case, defendant's best evidence objection was pro forma. Defendant neither challenged Detective Price's testimony regarding the contents of the videotapes nor requested that the tapes be played. Accordingly, even assuming defendant's perfunctory objection was sufficient to raise the issue, we conclude that any violation of the best evidence rule was harmless.