Opinion ID: 1190445
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Exclusion of statements by McCray and Daniels

Text: Defendant contends the trial court erred in sustaining the prosecutor's hearsay objection against defendant's proffered testimony as to extrajudicial statements allegedly made to him by McCray and prosecution witness Marta Daniels. Defendant's contention is partly correct, but the trial court's error was not prejudicial to defendant.
The defense was that McCray killed the Brices. Defendant testified that he was present at the jewelry store when McCray entered and began shooting. Defendant also testified that shortly after he fled the store he saw McCray driving on Foothill Boulevard, that McCray stopped his car, and that he spoke with defendant. The prosecutor objected on hearsay grounds when defendant's counsel asked what McCray had said. Defendant's offer of proof was that McCray had handed a bag of jewelry to defendant and told him, Here's the jewelry. Would you sell it? or something like Would you sell the jewelry? I want you to sell it. The trial court sustained the prosecutor's hearsay objection. (7a) Defendant contends the alleged statement was not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted but was nonassertive background material that explained defendant's state of mind and conduct. Such extrajudicial statements are not hearsay. (Evid. Code, § 1200; People v. Roberson (1959) 167 Cal. App.2d 429, 431 [334 P.2d 666]; 1 Jefferson, Cal. Evidence Benchbook (2d ed. 1982) § 1.4, illus. 2, p. 58.) Respondent does not dispute that the proffered testimony would have been relevant to such a showing, but argues that defendant's state of mind was not a material issue. Defendant has the better view. To undercut defendant's contention that McCray killed the Brices, the prosecutor introduced evidence that several witnesses had observed defendant with a large quantity of jewelry like that taken from Brice's store. Defendant attempted to rebut this damaging evidence by showing that he had taken the jewelry from McCray because defendant knew McCray was the killer and feared that McCray would kill him if he did not follow McCray's commands. Defendant's state of mind and ensuing conduct  more particularly, the alleged reason why he took the jewelry from McCray  were disputed intermediate facts. (8) An intermediate fact of consequence in an action is a fact from which the ultimate fact may reasonably be inferred. Intermediate facts include facts such as the state-of-mind ... and similar facts from which it may be inferred that the person possessing the particular state of mind or emotion conducted himself in conformity with that state of mind.... (1 Jefferson, Cal. Evidence Benchbook (June 1990 supp.) § 21.3, p. 199.) (7b) If the jury believed defendant's assertion that he took the jewelry from McCray because defendant feared for his own safety, the jury could have reasonably rejected the prosecution's implication that defendant had taken the jewelry from the store, which implication pointed to defendant as the killer. The reason defendant had some of the jewelry from Brice's store was therefore an intermediate fact of consequence. McCray's alleged statement to defendant was relevant to this intermediate fact. (Respondent does not contend otherwise.) Proffered evidence is relevant to prove or disprove a disputed fact if: [¶] ... [¶] [s]uch evidence, in the light of logic, reason, experience, or common sense, has, by reasonable inference, a tendency to prove or disprove such disputed fact. (1 Jefferson, Cal. Evidence Benchbook, supra, § 21.3, p. 198; Evid. Code, § 210.) McCray's alleged statement, if believed by the jury, would have tended to prove defendant's explanation of why he had possession of the jewelry. The alleged statement by McCray was therefore relevant, nonhearsay evidence. The trial court erred in excluding defendant's proffered testimony as to McCray's alleged statement. The error, however, was not prejudicial. After the trial court sustained the hearsay objection, defendant was nevertheless allowed to testify as follows: Q: You cannot say what Michael [McCray] said to you. Did Michael give you anything at that time? A: Yes, he did. Q: What did he give you at that time? A: A bag of costume jewelry. Q: Did he tell you what  don't tell me what he did [say], but did he tell you what to do with it? A: Yes, he did. Q: Did you take this bag of costume jewelry? A: Yes, I did.... Q: Did you recognize as best you can that kind of jewelry? A: Yes, I did. Q: And where had you seen that type of jewelry before? A: At Anthony's [Brice's] shop. Defendant was allowed to support his contention that he received the jewelry from McCray. Similarly, although the trial court excluded the alleged statement by McCray, defendant was not precluded from testifying as to why he was afraid of McCray or why defendant attempted to sell the stolen jewelry. Finally, in light of the entire record, it is not reasonably probable that a result more favorable to defendant would have been reached in the absence of the error. ( People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 837 [299 P.2d 243].) [1]
Prosecution witness Marta Daniels, who had lived with McCray for several years and was his common law sister-in-law, testified on direct examination that on the morning of the killings she asked defendant to give her a dollar and that he told her he had no money but would have one when he got through with his lick. To Daniels, a lick meant a robbery, a scam, a con, or any kind of thing where you get something for doing something wrong. Later that same day, August 15, defendant gave Daniels $50 to buy some cocaine. Three days later, she observed defendant with jewelry and watches. Defendant testified that on the afternoon of August 15, Daniels came to the house where defendant was staying. The prosecutor made a hearsay objection when defendant was asked to recount the substance of his conversation with Daniels that day. Defendant's offer of proof was, She [Daniels] asked me if I had sold the stuff [the jewelry].) The trial court sustained the hearsay objection, explaining that the alleged inquiry by Daniels was being offered to prove the truth of the implied assertion that McCray had told her that he had given the jewelry to defendant. (9a) Defendant contends the alleged question by Daniels as to whether defendant had sold the jewelry was nonhearsay because it was not being offered to prove the truth of the matter implicitly asserted (i.e., McCray's ownership of the jewelry) but rather to explain defendant's state of mind and conduct in giving part of the jewelry to Daniels. We reject the contention for two reasons. First, in his offer of proof to the trial court defendant contended only that the alleged inquiry by Daniels was not hearsay because it was in the form of a question rather than a statement. Defendant did not assert that the alleged inquiry was in any way relevant to his state of mind or conduct. (10) To preserve an alleged error for appeal, an offer of proof must inform the trial court of the purpose, and relevance of the excluded evidence.... (Evid. Code, § 354, subd. (a).) This is in accord with the general rule that questions relating to the admissibility of evidence will not be reviewed on appeal in the absence of a specific and timely objection in the trial court on the ground sought to be urged on appeal.  ( People v. Rogers (1978) 21 Cal.3d 542, 548 [146 Cal. Rptr. 732, 579 P.2d 1048], italics added.) (9b) Defendant's present contention as to his state of mind comes too late. Second, Daniels's alleged inquiry was irrelevant. Defendant contends Daniels's alleged inquiry would help to explain why he gave her jewelry. He seems to reason as follows: (1) Evidence that he gave jewelry to Daniels suggested to the jury that defendant had obtained the jewelry and thus was the Brice killer; and (2) the alleged inquiry by Daniels would have contradicted this implication, apparently by suggesting that defendant gave her jewelry because he knew she was a friend of McCray and that defendant was afraid of McCray because the jewelry belonged to McCray rather than to defendant. The first prong of this reasoning is not supported by the record. Daniels did not testify that defendant gave her jewelry. To the contrary, she testified that he never gave her jewelry. At the time of defendant's offer of proof, there was no evidence he had given jewelry to Daniels. The reason why he allegedly gave her the jewelry was irrelevant. Moreover, the subsequent record makes clear that the alleged inquiry was being introduced for a hearsay purpose. After the trial court excluded the evidence, defendant himself testified that he had given Daniels approximately one-half of the jewelry that defendant had allegedly obtained from McCray. The obvious purpose of this testimony, which was contrary to Daniels's testimony, was to suggest to the jury that defendant gave the jewelry to Daniels because it belonged to her friend McCray, rather than to defendant. That implied assertion, in turn, would have tended to support defendant's claim that McCray committed the robbery and killings. The purpose of the alleged inquiry by Daniels was therefore to prove the truth of the implied assertion that the jewelry belonged to McCray rather than to defendant. Defendant's own testimony as to the transfer of jewelry to Daniels was meant to exonerate himself. Defendant's contention that he needed to refute a harmful implication based on his alleged transfer of jewelry to Daniels ignores the fact that defendant himself introduced evidence of the transfer. The trial court did not err in excluding defendant's testimony as to the alleged inquiry by Daniels. Even if defendant were correct that the excluded testimony would have demonstrated his state of mind or his conduct  the reason why he gave jewelry to Daniels  exclusion of testimony as to Daniels's alleged inquiry was not prejudicial. Defendant was allowed to testify that he gave her the jewelry, and he could have further testified as to why he did so. The choice not to do so was his. Moreover, according to defendant's own offer of proof, Daniels's alleged question was simply whether defendant had sold the jewelry. This question would have added almost nothing to defendant's contention that he was afraid of McCray. It is not reasonably probable in light of the entire record that a result more favorable to defendant would have been reached if the alleged inquiry had been admitted into evidence. ( People v. Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d 818, 837.) [2]