Opinion ID: 1194882
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Admitting Evidence of Lack of Remorse at the Guilt Phase

Text: (13) Defendant cried during his guilt phase testimony. In in limine argument, the prosecution suggested his display of emotion may have been manufactured to buttress his credibility. It sought to introduce rebuttal evidence that he showed no remorse when confessing to the crimes to the police. Defendant objected that the testimony would be improper rebuttal and that admitting it would be reaching to the ends of the universe. The trial court ruled that the testimony was admissible, and an investigator told the jury that defendant showed no remorse when confessing. Defendant renews his contention on appeal, and claims that the procedure violated rights to a fair trial contained in the state and federal Constitutions. As stated ante, page 306, we review the ruling for an abuse of discretion. It is true that unless a defendant opens the door to the matter in his or her case-in-chief ( People v. Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 950, 1016 [22 Cal. Rptr.2d 689, 857 P.2d 1099]), his or her remorse is irrelevant at the guilt phase. The People contend that the evidence was proper to impeach demeanor evidence in the form of defendant's display of emotion while testifying. (See People v. Edelbacher (1989) 47 Cal.3d 983, 1030 [254 Cal. Rptr. 586, 766 P.2d 1] (lead opn.) [argument regarding defendant's demeanor as a witness is proper].) But a display of tears on the witness stand, assuming that it is character evidence, does not necessarily open the door to `any and all bad character evidence the prosecution can [generate]. As in other cases, the scope of rebuttal must be specific, and evidence presented or argued as rebuttal must relate directly to a particular incident or character trait defendant offers in his own behalf.' ( People v. Ramirez (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1158, 1193 [270 Cal. Rptr. 286, 791 P.2d 965], italics deleted.) Defendant's demeanor (see Evid. Code, § 780, subd. (a)), if evidence at all, only showed that he currently regretted his conduct. The court's ruling was correct. On direct examination, defendant had testified that he felt remorse during the interrogations that took place the day after committing the crimes. The People's rebuttal witness was present at those interrogations and testified that he saw no sense of remorse at that time, or when he had contact with defendant the day following the initial interrogations. This was proper rebuttal evidence ( People v. Clark, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 1016), and the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting it.