Opinion ID: 1367717
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Admission of the Testimony Previously Given by Mariella Perez at the Evidence Code Section 402 Hearing

Text: (10a) At the request of the defense, during the presentation of its case, the trial court admitted into evidence three portions of a reporter's transcript of the testimony given by Mariella Perez at the December 16, 1986, hearing conducted (pursuant to Evid. Code, ง 402) outside the presence of the jury to determine the admissibility of her multiple-hearsay testimony. Defense counsel was permitted to read to the jury 10 questions and answers in which Perez had stated, contrary to her testimony before the jury and contrary to statements made on other occasions, that neither Juanita Blanco nor her sisters were at home on the morning of the murder, that the younger Inez Blanco had not said defendant's hands and clothing were bloody when he came to the Blancos' house, and that no one had come to Perez's home and warned her not to testify. The prosecutor then offered into evidence, and the court ruled admissible over defendant's objection, the transcript of the entire testimony given by Perez at the prior hearing. [5] Evidence Code section 356 provides, in pertinent part: Where part of an act, declaration, conversation, or writing is given in evidence by one party, the whole on the same subject may be inquired into by an adverse party.... (11) In applying Evidence Code section 356 the courts do not draw narrow lines around the exact subject of inquiry. `In the event a statement admitted in evidence constitutes part of a conversation or correspondence, the opponent is entitled to have placed in evidence all that was said or written by or to the declarant in the course of such conversation or correspondence, provided the other statements have some bearing upon, or connection with, the admission or declaration in evidence....' [Citations.] ( People v. Hamilton (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1142, 1174 [259 Cal. Rptr. 701, 774 P.2d 730], italics in original.) (10b) Defendant introduced portions of the testimony given by Perez at the hearing held outside the presence of the jury, in order to demonstrate that this testimony differed from her later testimony before the jury and from statements she had made on other occasions. The People were entitled, therefore, to introduce the remainder of Perez's testimony for the purpose of placing her allegedly inconsistent statements in their proper context, provided that the remaining testimony had some bearing upon, or connection with the inconsistent statements introduced by defendant. ( People v. Hamilton, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 1174, italics omitted.) The statements introduced by defendant concerned Perez's multiple-hearsay testimony relating Juanita Blanco's repetition of her sister Inez's statement (regarding defendant's visit to the Blanco residence on the morning of the murder) and whether Perez later had been warned not to assist in the murder investigation. Perez's testimony at the hearing comprises less than six full pages of reporter's transcript. Perez first described the nature of her relationship with the Blanco family, and then recounted her conversation with Juanita Blanco concerning the statement of Juanita's sister, Inez. The remainder of Perez's testimony concerned whether she had been warned not to cooperate with the authorities. The only portion of Perez's testimony that did not relate directly to those portions introduced by the defense was Perez's description of her relationship with the Blanco family. That relationship, in particular with Juanita Blanco, had some bearing upon, or connection with her multiple-hearsay testimony concerning Juanita's relating of the statement made by Juanita's sister, Inez. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in admitting, pursuant to Evidence Code section 356, the entire testimony given by Perez at the prior hearing. Defendant states the trial court admitted Perez's testimony without even reviewing the transcript. The record does not support this assertion. During argument concerning the prosecutor's request to admit Perez's entire testimony from the prior hearing, the court inquired, May I see the transcript? Immediately prior to making its ruling, the court stated: It appears to me that Miss Perez's testimony in its pertinent part goes up to 128, line 16. The rest is colloquy between counsel and argument. It appears, therefore, that the trial court rather carefully reviewed the transcript before making its ruling. (12) Relying in part upon his claim that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion because it did not review the transcript of Perez's testimony, defendant contends the court erred in refusing to exclude the prior testimony pursuant to Evidence Code section 352 because the prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighed its probative value. As explained above, however, the trial court did review the transcript. The record of a ruling based on Evidence Code section 352 `must affirmatively show that the trial judge did in fact weigh prejudice against probative value....' [Citations.] ( People v. Heishman (1988) 45 Cal.3d 147, 170 [246 Cal. Rptr. 673, 753 P.2d 629].) In the present case, after the trial court had made its ruling, defense counsel reiterated that his objection was based on Evidence Code section 352. The court responded: Yes. I have thought about whether the jury would be confused by the whole testimony. I don't believe they would. The record thus is sufficient to indicate the trial court understood its duty, and exercised its discretion, pursuant to Evidence Code section 352. (45 Cal.3d at p. 170.) We observe, additionally, that the admission of the entire testimony given by Perez at the Evidence Code section 402 hearing could not have prejudiced defendant. As he acknowledges, much of this testimony was cumulative to the testimony given by Perez before the jury. Other small portions, such as the statement that Juanita reversed the charges when she telephoned Perez, were irrelevant and nonprejudicial.