Opinion ID: 2633509
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 22

Heading: Jackie Bridgewater

Text: Jackie Bridgewater, who described defendant as like a son to her, testified that defendant came to her house on January 10, 1989, looking pale and ill, and that she called a number of agencies (including a psychiatric hospital) trying, unsuccessfully, to get him immediate help. To defense counsel's question, What kind of mental state was he in? the court sustained the prosecutor's objection of calls for speculation. To defense counsel's next question, Can you describe his behavior? Bridgewater answered: He cried and hung on to me, and asked me for help. He said that he The prosecutor's hearsay objection, interposed at that point, was sustained. Defendant complains both rulings deprived him of relevant mitigating evidence. As defendant did not make an offer of proof, the record does not show what answer Bridgewater would have given about his mental state. Even if we found prejudicial error, therefore, we could not reverse on this ground. (Evid.Code, 354, subd. (a); see People v. Whitt, supra, 51 Cal.3d at pp. 647-650, 274 Cal.Rptr. 252, 798 P.2d 849.) On appeal, defendant suggests Bridgewater would have testified he was disturbed. This would have added little if anything to Bridgewater's testimony that defendant cried and hung on to me, and asked me for help and that she called a psychiatric hospital on his behalf. Its exclusion, even if error, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. ( People v. Fudge, supra, 7 Cal.4th at pp. 1117-1118, 31 Cal. Rptr.2d 321, 875 P.2d 36.) The prosecutor correctly objected on hearsay grounds to Bridgewater's testimony that defendant said that he The continued answer was also nonresponsive to counsel's question about defendant's behavior. Again, we cannot tell from the record what Bridgewater would have said. To the extent she would have narrated defendant's pleas for help, as he claims on appeal, the evidence might have been admissible for a nonhearsay purpose, but would have added little if anything to her testimony that defendant asked me for help. Later, Bridgewater testified without objection that she had gotten to know the Demetrulias family better over the past year or so and that they were not a normal family. The prosecutor's relevance objections were sustained, however, to a series of related questions regarding Bridgewater's recent observations of the family. The same objection was sustained to defense counsel's question, Has his mom told you that she used to beat the heck out of the kids? Finally, a relevance objection was sustained to counsel's question, Did you see a lot of kids in the neighborhood ultimately on drug-related problems? Defendant complains these rulings deprived him of relevant mitigating evidence. Defendant failed at trial, and still fails, to explain how Bridgewater's observations of the state of his family in the year or so before trial were relevant to his character or record; the trial court's rulings on this series of questions appear correct. Similarly, defendant failed at the time, and still fails, to explain the relevance of general testimony about drug use in the neighborhood. Whether defendant's mother beat the kids does appear relevant, assuming defense counsel's question referred to a time when defendant was among the kids at home, but the question clearly called for hearsay. Contrary to defendant's suggestion, his mother's supposed declaration was not within the exception for statements against interest (Evid.Code, § 1230), as she was by no means unavailable as a witness. She in fact testified for the defense in the penalty phase, but defense counsel chose not to ask her whether she had beaten her children. In any event, the proposed testimony was largely cumulative of other evidence. Georgeann Demetrulias testified to their mother's abuse of her children and to the current difficulties of the family. Another neighbor testified that drugs had caused problems for many families in the neighborhood. Even if error, exclusion of additional proposed testimony along these lines was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. ( People v. Fudge, supra, 7 Cal.4th at pp. 1117-1118, 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 321, 875 P.2d 36.)