Opinion ID: 2582262
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant's Drug Use

Text: Before trial, defendant moved to exclude evidence that he used crack cocaine. The court ruled that the prosecution could not present generalized evidence that defendant used drugs. It did allow testimony that defendant used money stolen from the store to buy and use drugs in order to show that he had a motive for robbery. Relying on People v. Holt (1984) 37 Cal.3d 436, 449-450, 208 Cal.Rptr. 547, 690 P.2d 1207, and People v. Cardenas (1982) 31 Cal.3d 897, 906-907, 184 Cal. Rptr. 165, 647 P.2d 569, defendant assigns error. There was none. The rule from those cases is that evidence of an accused's narcotics addiction is inadmissible where it `tends only remotely or to an insignificant degree to prove a material fact in the case. . . .' ( Cardenas, at p. 906, 184 Cal.Rptr. 165, 647 P.2d 569.) Whether defendant went to the store intending to steal or only decided to take the money after the murder was an issue hotly contested. Evidence that, shortly after the incident, defendant wanted to acquire and consume cocaine was directly relevant on the question of whether he had a preexisting motive to steal. The court properly admitted this limited evidence of drug use while excluding more generalized evidence not directly connected with the crime. (See also People v. Felix (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1385, 1392-1396, 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 860 [holding evidence of heroin use admissible to show burglary motive].)