Opinion ID: 2575291
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evidence of defendant's interest in flame guns

Text: During the direct testimony of Mei Chang, defense counsel sought to preclude reference to an incident that occurred the weekend preceding commission of the crimes, when defendant expressed interest in a flame gun. The court overruled the objection, finding the evidence relevant and not unduly prejudicial under Evidence Code section 352. Chang testified that on the night of Valentine's Day, she and defendant watched the movie Rambo (Anabasis N.V. 1982). The prosecutor inquired whether defendant told Chang to pay any special attention to some parts of the movie? Chang identified [t]he firing, and explained, in the movie lots of fire guns, fires. The prosecutor asked, Did he say anything about any particular kind of gun? Chang responded, I think that's the one he was using, the one with a lot of fire out. A fire gun. We reject defendant's contention that the evidence was irrelevant and inflammatory. The evidence was relevant because it demonstrated defendant's continuing interest in firearms during a period immediately preceding defendant's charged criminal conduct. When contrasted with defendant's murderous assault two days later, the evidence cannot be characterized as unduly inflammatory. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence. ( People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1118 [74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121, 954 P.2d 384] ( Barnett ) [applying abuse of discretion standard of review].) Nor did its admission violate defendant's right to a fundamentally fair trial.