Opinion ID: 2631133
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Skillman's Statement to Gattenby

Text: Defendant contends the trial court erred by excluding a statement Skillman made to Gattenby shortly before defendant shot Skillman and Rita. These are the relevant facts: At the preliminary hearing, on cross-examination by defendant's counsel, Gattenby testified that about 12:15 p.m. on the day of the murders, after codefendant Wynglarz had first left Skillman's house, Gattenby was upstairs with murder victims Skillman and Rita when he heard a knock at Skillman's front door. Skillman said, [Wynglarz] burned me over a quarter ounce of meth. I don't know what [he] is up to. Stay up here. During his defense case, defendant sought to introduce this statement by Skillman to impeach Gattenby's testimony (on cross-examination by counsel for codefendant Wynglarz) and Wynglarz's testimony (on direct examination) that Skillman was friendly with Wynglarz on the day of the murders. The trial court ruled that Skillman's statement was probative of his relationship with codefendant Wynglarz and was also relevant to explain Skillman's state of mind and conduct when he encountered defendant and Wynglarz at his front door. [8] The court admitted the portion of Skillman's statement that impeached Wynglarz's description of his relationship with Skillman as friendly (I don't know what [he] is up to. Stay up here), but it excluded the portion of Skillman's statement that mentioned that [Wynglarz] burned me over a quarter ounce of meth as more prejudicial than probative under Evidence Code section 352. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court's redaction of Skillman's statement that [Wynglarz] burned me over a quarter ounce of meth violated article I, section 28, subdivision (d) of the California Constitution, which prohibits the exclusion of relevant evidence in any criminal trial except as provided by statute. Defendant argues the trial court's reason for disallowing the introduction of the statement its prejudicial naturedid not apply to defendant because admission of the entire statement was crucial to defendant's self-defense theory that Skillman was the aggressor and attacked defendant as defendant came in the front door. Under Evidence Code section 352, which is an express exception to article I, section 28, subdivision (d) of the California Constitution, a trial court has discretion to exclude evidence when its probative value is outweighed by concerns of undue prejudice, confusion, or consumption of time. On appeal, we review a trial court's ruling under Evidence Code section 352 for abuse of discretion. ( People v. Pollock (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1153, 1171, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 34, 89 P.3d 353.) Even if we assume the trial court abused its discretion in not admitting Skillman's comment that [Wynglarz] burned me over a quarter ounce of meth, defendant suffered no possible prejudice. Admission of the redacted portion of Skillman's statement would have added little to defendant's theory at trial that Skillman was the aggressor and attacked defendant at the front door. On the day of the murders, Skillman had a loaded .22 rifle in his bedroom. Yet he did not take that weapon with him when confronting defendant and codefendant Wynglarz at the front door. This alone undercuts defendant's theory that Skillman was the aggressor. Finally, the prosecution presented overwhelming evidence that defendant entered the house with a loaded weapon and almost immediately subdued Skillman and Rita and shot them execution style. Admission of the excluded statement would not have resulted in a more favorable verdict for defendant. ( People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836, 299 P.2d 243.) Even if we were to assume error implicating defendant's rights under the federal Constitution, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705.