Opinion ID: 1258767
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Assorted Evidentiary Rulings

Text: Defendant claims a number of assertedly incorrect evidentiary rulings prejudiced him. We conclude that any such errors, whether viewed separately or in the aggregate, do not require reversal of penalty. 1. Detective Bruce's Testimony  An Arizona policeman, Robert Bruce, testified regarding the Dawn F. assault. According to Bruce, he conducted a photographic lineup using a picture of [defendant], FBI number 751791-D, along with photos of two other men. In addition, Bruce obtained from the St. Louis police an update mugshot of defendant. On defendant's objection to the admission of the photos, the court excluded them, but it failed to strike Bruce's testimony. (6) Defendant claims he was prejudiced by the foregoing testimonial references to photos of him in the possession of two separate law enforcement agencies. As the People observe, defendant waived the point, having failed to move to strike the Bruce testimony. His only objection occurred after the testimony was elicited, when the People sought to admit the photos. Moreover, in light of the substantial evidence of defendant's other assaults and molestations, it is apparent that he was not prejudiced by the foregoing testimony. The jury would hardly find it surprising that law enforcement agencies possessed photos of repeated offenders such as defendant. 2. Brian J.'s Testimony  After Brian J. testified as previously described, the prosecutor elicited from him the fact that he was himself in custody awaiting sentencing on a larceny charge, but that no promises were made to induce his testimony. On cross-examination, defense counsel explored this subject further, determining, among other things, that Brian was told by the prosecutor that a letter would be written to Missouri authorities informing them of his cooperation. As Brian testified, the letter was not conditioned on his testimony against defendant. Thereafter, the prosecutor called Randal Lamb, the Illinois deputy sheriff who had interviewed Brian following the assault. Over objection, Lamb's written report of the interview was admitted as evidence of Brian's prior consistent statements regarding the assault. (7) Defendant now contends that such statements were inadmissible under Evidence Code section 791. That section allows evidence of a witness's prior consistent statements offered after [a]n express or implied charge has been made that his testimony ... is recently fabricated or is influenced by bias or other improper motive, and the statement was made before the bias, motive for fabrication, or other improper motive is alleged to have arisen. (See also Evid. Code, § 1236.) The trial court found that defendant's cross-examination of Brian impliedly attacked Brian's testimony as being improperly motivated by promises of leniency. Although, as defendant observes, the prosecutor initiated inquiry into this subject by eliciting the fact of Brian's custody, it was defense counsel who, through cross-examination, implied that Brian may have had a possible improper motive. Accordingly, the conditions of Evidence Code section 791 were met, and the court did not err in admitting Brian's prior consistent statements. 3. Photographs of Victims While Alive  (8) Defendant contends the court erred in allowing the prosecutor to admit and refer to childhood photos of each of defendant's other crimes victims, as well as two photos (one very recent) of murder victim Amy S. According to defendant, these photos were irrelevant to the penalty phase issues and were used by the prosecutor solely to inflame the jury against him. Defendant observes, for example, that during closing arguments the prosecutor displayed Amy's recent photo, and commented on her youth, size and vulnerability. We considered a similar claim of error in People v. Hovey (1988) 44 Cal.3d 543, 576 [244 Cal. Rptr. 121, 749 P.2d 776], involving the prosecutor's use, at both the guilt and penalty phases, of a portrait-style photograph of the young murder victim for the apparent purpose of gaining sympathy for her. As we stated in Hovey, some appeals to sympathy are proper at the penalty phase where the jury must `weigh the sympathetic elements of defendant's background against those that may offend the conscience,' so long as no wholly irrelevant information or inflammatory rhetoric is employed. ( People v. Haskett [1982] 30 Cal.3d 841, 863 [180 Cal. Rptr. 640, 640 P.2d 776]; see People v. Fields [(1983)] 35 Cal.3d [329], 362, fn. 14 [197 Cal. Rptr. 803, 673 P.2d 680].) Although trial courts should discourage use of the victim's photograph solely to invoke a sympathetic reaction at the penalty phase, any error here was clearly harmless and could not have affected the verdict. (44 Cal.3d at p. 576, fn. omitted.) The trial court herein justified admission of the photos on the basis that significant time had passed since the guilt phase, and it was appropriate to put the victims in the proper setting as to the various events in question, age, sizes, vulnerability.... That ruling seems reasonable. The prosecutor was entitled to present evidence regarding the circumstances of the crime (former § 190.3, factor (a)), which would at least include a photo of Amy. As for the other victims, as in Hovey, any error in admitting these ordinary, nongruesome photos, or using them to gain a measure of sympathy from the jury, was clearly harmless in light of the other aggravating evidence in the case. (See Hovey, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 576.) 4. Photographs of Injuries to Rynetta C.  Additionally, the prosecutor introduced three photos displaying the injuries to other crimes victim Rynetta C. These photos each depicted flesh wounds to the victim's stomach and genital area. (9) Defendant contends there was insufficient authentication of the photos to justify their admission. Defendant made no objection to the photos, and thus waived his right to complain of the failure to properly authenticate them. (See People v. Allen (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1222, 1271 [232 Cal. Rptr. 849, 729 P.2d 115].) His claim that counsel's asserted incompetence in this regard prejudiced him is without merit. We have examined the photos, and we are convinced there is no reasonable probability their admission affected the jury's verdict. (See Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 694 [80 L.Ed.2d 674, 104 S.Ct. 2052].) 5. Photographs of Injuries to Amy S.  Defendant next contends the court erred in admitting five photos of murder victim Amy S. which disclosed the various injuries inflicted by defendant. On defendant's objection, the court examined these photos and weighed their relevance against their potential prejudicial effect. (Evid. Code, § 352.) The court agreed that the photos were gruesome, but nonetheless admitted them after observing that no one photograph displays all of the apparent injuries on the body, and they are highly relevant. Defendant contends the photos were largely cumulative of medical testimony regarding the victim's injuries. He also argues that the prosecutor made unfair use of one such photo in his closing argument, asking the jury to compare the photo of Amy when alive with one showing her dusty and mangled lying out there in the dirt all naked. He [defendant] took this little girl and he trashed her. Although defendant failed to object to this argument (see People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 27 [164 Cal. Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468]), he suggests it reinforces the claim that an abuse of discretion occurred here. Having examined the five photos, we find no abuse of discretion in admitting them. (See People v. Carrera (1989) 49 Cal.3d 291, 329 [261 Cal. Rptr. 348, 777 P.2d 121].) As for the prosecutor's subsequent use of the photos to gain jury sympathy for the murder victim, defendant's failure to object bars consideration of the issue on appeal. In any event, it is not reasonably possible that the admission of the photos, or their use by the prosecutor during closing argument, affected the penalty verdict in this case. As the prosecutor pointed out immediately following his use of the photos in closing argument, you [the jury] don't have to be angry; you don't have to be emotional; I think all you have to do is reflect on the purpose of the death penalty, on its function, on its justice. Additionally, defendant contends that introduction of Amy's photos violated the principles expressed by the high court in South Carolina v. Gathers (1989) 490 U.S. 805 [104 L.Ed.2d 876, 109 S.Ct. 2077] and Booth v. Maryland (1987) 482 U.S. 496 [96 L.Ed.2d 440, 107 S.Ct. 2529]. We believe the admission of such photos does not amount to impermissible victim impact evidence of the kind condemned in those cases. Any such error, moreover, would be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (See People v. Adcox (1988) 47 Cal.3d 207, 259-260 [253 Cal. Rptr. 55, 763 P.2d 906]; People v. Hendricks (1987) 43 Cal.3d 584, 594-595 [238 Cal. Rptr. 66, 737 P.2d 1350].) 6. Cumulative Effect of Errors  Finally, defendant argues that the cumulative effect of the various assertedly erroneous evidentiary rulings discussed above was to unduly prejudice the verdict. As we have seen, however, several of these claims of error were waived for failure to object, while other such claims lack merit. We find the cumulative effect of the few remaining errors too slight to warrant reversal of the penalty judgment.