Opinion ID: 2720490
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Francine Smith and Mona Scott

Text: Defendants briefly contend error when Francine Smith and Mona Scott were allowed to relate statements by victim Armstrong that he was ―owed‖ for having ―taken the fall‖ for someone. They now attack the statements as hearsay. Defendants acknowledge they did not object to the testimony on this (or any) ground at trial, but argue an objection would have been futile in light of the court‘s decision to admit the tape of Armstrong‘s police interview. ―The overruling of an objection to one item of evidence does not necessarily mean an objection to different evidence would have been futile,‖ even when the items at issue concern the same subject. (Livingston, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 1160.) In any event, as we explained regarding defendants‘ challenge to Armstrong‘s interview statements, any error in admission was harmless even under the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.