Opinion ID: 1182062
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: The Victim's Habit of Carrying Money in Envelopes

Text: In an effort to bolster the charge of robbery and the robbery special circumstance, the prosecution was permitted to introduce evidence of Linda Pasnick's habit of placing cash in envelopes as a means of earmarking funds for special purchases. Her husband, Victor Pasnick, testified to this habit, which was developed by the victim as a means of overcoming another apparent habit: compulsive spending. (16a) There was no abuse of discretion in the court's decision to admit the habit evidence. Evidence Code section 1105 provides that [a]ny otherwise admissible evidence of habit or custom is admissible to prove conduct on a specified occasion in conformity with the habit or custom. At the foundational hearing, Victor Pasnick testified as to the victim's regular conduct under certain specified conditions, i.e., when she was paying bills of amounts owed to someone for a particular thing. According to his testimony, these conditions did not include all purchases, but did include special purchases for personal items such as clothing. (17) The question whether habit evidence is admissible is essentially one of threshold relevancy ( People v. Wein (1977) 69 Cal. App.3d 79, 91 [137 Cal. Rptr. 814]); it is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. ( People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 19 [164 Cal. Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468].) (16b) Here, there was evidence of repeated instances of similar conduct sufficient for the trial court to conclude a habit was present. ( People v. Memro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 658, 681 [214 Cal. Rptr. 832, 700 P.2d 446].) In addition to asserting error in the admission of the habit evidence, defendant also maintains the trial court prevented him from effectively cross-examining the victim's husband on the issue of habit at the foundational hearing. Defendant cites a colloquy between the court and defense counsel wherein the court questioned the relevancy of counsel's question whether the victim had spent some of the $2,000 to $3,000 she had planned to spend on a modeling competition before the date of her murder. Initially, the court did not sustain any objection or specifically preclude any line of inquiry. Its mere inquiry was not a definite ruling against defendant's proposed examination; the absence of an adverse ruling precludes any appellate challenge. ( Haskell v. Carli (1987) 195 Cal. App.3d 124, 120 [240 Cal. Rptr. 439] [failure to secure ruling waives issue on appeal].) Moreover, no abuse of discretion is shown. As the court indicated, the inquiry was of questionable relevance to the issue of the victim's habit of segregating funds in envelopes and making payments from the envelopes. Finally, no prejudice is shown. Even if the victim's husband had admitted that some of the $2,000 to $3,000 had been spent, this would not necessarily have precluded the victim from having a few hundred dollars with her in an envelope on the day of her murder.