Opinion ID: 1147525
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Cautionary Instruction on Preoffense Statements

Text: (10) Defendant urges error in the trial court's failure to give CALJIC No. 2.71.7, [12] regarding evidence of an accused's preoffense statements. This instruction, when applicable, must be given sua sponte. ( People v. Williams (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1268, 1315 [248 Cal. Rptr. 834, 756 P.2d 221]; People v. Bunyard (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1189, 1224 [249 Cal. Rptr. 71, 756 P.2d 795]; People v. Heishman (1988) 45 Cal.3d 147, 166 [246 Cal. Rptr. 673, 753 P.2d 629]; People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441, 455 [99 Cal. Rptr. 313, 492 P.2d 1].) Here the trial court gave CALJIC No. 2.71, [13] which advised the jury to view with caution evidence of any out-of-court statement by defendant offered to establish his guilt of the charged offenses. This broad cautionary instruction encompassed evidence of preoffense statements and was adequate in this case. (See People v. James (1987) 196 Cal. App.3d 272, 286-287 [241 Cal. Rptr. 691]; People v. Kozel (1982) 133 Cal. App.3d 507, 530 [184 Cal. Rptr. 208].) Defendant was not prejudiced by the omission of CALJIC No. 2.71.7.
Referring to Crothers's testimony that defendant carried a gun and stated he would waste any mother fucker that screws with me, the prosecutor argued to the jury that defendant is somewhat of a self-styled gangster.... He's bad, likes to think that he's a bad man, tough. That's the kind of defendant we have here. Defense counsel objected that this was improper type of evidence, and improper inference from any evidence that was submitted. The court overruled the objection, stating that this is a matter for the jury to consider in evaluating what the evidence was and what the proper inferences from it are. The prosecutor returned to this theme during his rebuttal argument. After again referring to Crothers's testimony, the prosecutor stated that defendant was a man who feels the need to carry a gun and that defendant thinks he's bad, in colloquial words, bad meaning tough, tough hombre, little gangster. (11) Defendant contends that the argument constituted misconduct because Crothers's testimony was admitted for a limited purpose and the prosecutor urged its use for a different purpose, i.e., as evidence of defendant's character or criminal disposition, a use precluded by Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (a) (see fn. 6, ante ). The use of opprobrious epithets in jury argument is not in itself misconduct. ( People v. Edelbacher (1989) 47 Cal.3d 983, 1030 [254 Cal. Rptr. 586, 766 P.2d 1] (lead opn. of Kaufman, J.); People v. Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal.3d 572, 580 [189 Cal. Rptr. 855, 659 P.2d 1144]; People v. Wein (1958) 50 Cal.2d 383, 396 [326 P.2d 457].) On the other hand, urging use of evidence for a purpose other than the limited purpose for which it was admitted is improper argument. Here, however, the evidence that defendant commonly carried a gun was not admitted for a limited purpose and the prosecutor's references to it were not improper. As previously noted, evidence of defendant's statement to Crothers (i.e., I'll waste any mother fucker that screws with me.) was admitted for the limited purpose of showing defendant's motive and intent at the time of the crime. This limited purpose is in theory distinct from showing that defendant was predisposed to violent crime, but in terms of the impact on the jury it made little difference that the prosecutor argued the evidence showed defendant was a gangster who likes to think he's bad (improper use for character or disposition) rather than arguing that the evidence showed defendant had the motive or intent to kill anyone who annoyed or interfered with him (proper use for motive and intent). Thus any misconduct was not prejudicial on the facts of this case.
The jury was instructed on self-defense in the language of CALJIC Nos. 5.12, 5.15, 5.17, 5.50, 5.51, and 5.52. Defendant urges error in the failure to instruct also in the language of CALJIC Nos. 5.10 and 5.16 [14] on the right to use deadly force to resist commission of a forcible and atrocious felony. (See People v. Ceballos (1974) 12 Cal.3d 470, 477-479 [116 Cal. Rptr. 233, 526 P.2d 241].) Neither of these instructions was requested. Defendant now contends they were required because the jury may have concluded that defendant used deadly force against Anderson to resist a forcible sodomy. (12) The trial court is required to instruct sua sponte only on general principles of law relevant to issues raised by the evidence [citation] and on particular defenses when a defendant appears to be relying on such defense and there is substantial evidence to support it [citation]. ( People v. Ainsworth (1988) 45 Cal.3d 984, 1026 [248 Cal. Rptr. 568, 755 P.2d 1017].) The record here does not show reliance on, or substantial evidence of, a theory of self-defense while resisting a forcible sodomy. Defendant testified that he shot Anderson after Anderson became angry, turned his back while appearing to load his rifle, and made a threatening gesture toward defendant with the rifle. Defendant did not testify to any fear of being forcibly sodomized; he did testify he believed Anderson was going to kill him. Defense counsel's argument to the jury was that defendant acted in fear of being shot, not fear of being sexually assaulted. The jury was instructed on the theory of self-defense presented by the evidence; failure to instruct sua sponte in the language of CALJIC Nos. 5.10 and 5.16 was not error.
(13) Defendant contends it was prejudicial error for the trial court to instruct in the language of CALJIC No. 2.21 [15] that the jury could reject in its entirety a witness's testimony found to be willfully false in one material part. Defendant maintains that the instruction was not warranted by the evidence, was superfluous and misleading, and impermissibly altered the burden of proof. In People v. Allison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 879, 894-895 [258 Cal. Rptr. 208, 771 P.2d 1294], we approved a long line of intermediate appellate decisions (e.g., People v. Goodwin (1988) 202 Cal. App.3d 940, 944-945 [249 Cal. Rptr. 430]; People v. Blassingill (1988) 199 Cal. App.3d 1413, 1418-1420 [245 Cal. Rptr. 599]; People v. Plager (1987) 196 Cal. App.3d 1537, 1546-1547 [242 Cal. Rptr. 624]; People v. Reyes (1987) 195 Cal. App.3d 957, 965-966 [240 Cal. Rptr. 752]; People v. Johnson (1986) 190 Cal. App.3d 187, 192-194 [237 Cal. Rptr. 479]; People v. Hempstead (1983) 148 Cal. App.3d 949, 956 [196 Cal. Rptr. 412]; People v. Williams (1975) 51 Cal. App.3d 65, 67-68 [123 Cal. Rptr. 891]) holding that CALJIC No. 2.21 is a correct statement of the law and appropriately given where there is an evidentiary basis to support it. Defendant provides no persuasive reason to reconsider that conclusion. There was a sufficient evidentiary basis for the instruction in this case. The jury could reasonably conclude that one or more witnesses had been willfully false in their testimony. To cite but one example, Daniel Crothers and defendant gave sharply conflicting testimony: Crothers described an incident in which defendant pointed a gun at Crothers and said, I'll waste any mother fucker that screws with me, but defendant denied that the incident ever took place. Since either defendant or Crothers must necessarily have testified falsely, and the jury could have found the falsehood willful, CALJIC No. 2.21 was properly given.
The jury was instructed in the language of CALJIC No. 2.15 [16] that giving a false explanation for possession of stolen property is a circumstance that may tend to show guilt. Defendant maintains it was error to give the instruction because evidence of his false explanation for possession of Anderson's property could not support a reasonable inference that defendant was guilty of robbery rather than grand theft. The instruction did not state that defendant's false statements supported an inference of guilt only as to the offense of robbery. The instruction was therefore a correct statement of law because, as defendant concedes, the false-statement evidence would support an inference of guilt as to either grand theft or robbery. Nothing in the instruction's language suggested it was intended to assist the jury in deciding which of these offenses defendant committed. (14) A party may not complain on appeal that an instruction correct in law and responsive to the evidence was too general or incomplete unless the party has requested appropriate clarifying or amplifying language. ( People v. Andrews (1989) 49 Cal.3d 200, 218 [260 Cal. Rptr. 583, 776 P.2d 285].) In any event, defendant's false explanations for his possession of Anderson's property were not irrelevant in determining whether he was guilty of robbery rather than grand theft. Defendant told Schroff, whom defendant apparently regarded as a good friend, that he had been hired as a chauffeur by a hunter who allowed him use of the motor home. Defendant's conduct in making this false statement supports an inference that he committed the greater crime because the more serious the offense, the stronger the motive for concealment of the true facts. Thus the illegal conduct which defendant's false explanation was intended to conceal was more likely to have been a robbery-murder than a mere theft following a killing in self-defense. For these reasons, it was not error to instruct in the language of CALJIC No. 2.15.
Defendant contends that his state and federal constitutional rights to presence at trial, due process, confrontation, public trial, and effective assistance of counsel were violated by his absence during (1) a jury view of the murder scene, (2) a discussion regarding the jury's requests for clarification, and (3) the reading of the testimony of four witnesses, and by his counsel's absence during the reading of the four witnesses' testimony.