Opinion ID: 2631807
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ken Christian's Testimony

Text: Defendant next argues that the court erred in admitting penalty phase testimony from Ken Christian to the effect that in 1985, three years before the Hanano crimes, defendant initiated a plan to commit another robbery and murder in order to obtain a black Corvette from its owner. The court allowed the evidence to rebut defendant's own penalty phase testimony that (1) the Hanano robbery murder was not part of any preexisting plan to steal a black Corvette, and (2) in 1985 Christian approached him with the plan to steal such a car and kill the owner. Defendant contends that Christian's testimony was inadmissible because it described proposed criminal activity rather than a completed crime that might have been admissible under section 190.3, factor (b). In defendant's view, the testimony was likewise inadmissible past conduct character evidence under Evidence Code section 1101. He claims that it should have been excluded as remote, the conversation having taken place three years before the Hanano crimes occurred. Finally, defendant believes the testimony was unduly prejudicial because it undermined the defense case in mitigation. (See Evid.Code, § 352.) We think the foregoing evidence was admissible to show that, contrary to defendant's own testimony on cross-examination, he originated an earlier plan to steal a black Corvette and murder its owner. The testimony was proper to rebut defendant's attempt to disclaim any preexisting intent to accomplish such crimes. In light of its relevance for this purpose, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence. Because the evidence retained some probative value, any remoteness of Christian's testimony would affect its weight, not its admissibility. (See People v. Thomas (1978) 20 Cal.3d 457, 466, 143 Cal.Rptr. 215, 573 P.2d 433.) Defendant cites no case suggesting that the court had a duty to give sua sponte instructions limiting consideration of the foregoing evidence to contradicting defendant's testimony.