Opinion ID: 2582262
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Victim's Purse

Text: The victim's purse was recovered at the crime scene. Defendant objected to admission of its contents, which included personal items he considered irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. The prosecutor argued the contents were relevant in light of defendant's theory. In opening statement, his counsel urged that defendant did not take money from the purse, thus indicating that robbery was not a motive. The prosecutor argued that the large number of other items in the purse might have deterred defendant from taking the time to rifle through it for money. The court initially overruled the objection. Defense counsel then argued that the record did not indicate exactly where the money had been kept in the purse. At that point, the court withheld a final ruling pending any further testimony on the question. There was no additional evidence. The purse and contents were admitted. Defendant particularly challenges admission of various items, including the victim's driver's license and picture as well as other photographs with personal messages written on the back. The Attorney General concedes that the court erred in admitting the contents, and we accept that concession without further comment. We conclude that the conceded error, if any, was harmless. There is no indication that the jurors searched through the purse's contents. Even had they done so, there is no reasonable probability that the presence of some personal items in the purse affected the guilt verdict. ( People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836, 299 P.2d 243.) The jury acquitted defendant of robbery and rejected the related robbery-murder special-circumstance allegation, demonstrating that it considered the evidence dispassionately in reaching its verdict. ( Smith, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 613, 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 68 P.3d 302.) The jury quite properly received extensive evidence that a young woman was repeatedly and fatally stabbed. It viewed her autopsy photographs. The admission of her driver's license and a few personally annotated pictures could not conceivably have rendered the trial fundamentally unfair. (See People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 439, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 644, 122 P.3d 765.)