Opinion ID: 1170873
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Error in Admitting the Tape Recording

Text: (7a) Defendant's final contention regarding Schmidt-Till's statements is that the court abused its discretion in admitting the tape recording of his telephone call to the dispatcher. He claims the recording was both irrelevant and highly inflammatory. The exclusion of relevant but prejudicial evidence is governed by Evidence Code section 352, which provides in part that the court may in its discretion exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will ... create substantial danger of undue prejudice. (8a) Failure of the court to weigh the probative value of challenged evidence against its prejudicial effect is an abuse of discretion. ( People v. Ford (1964) 60 Cal.2d 772, 801 [388 P.2d 892].) The weighing must be made explicit in the record. ( People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 526 [224 Cal. Rptr. 112, 714 P.2d 1251]; People v. Montiel (1985) 39 Cal.3d 910, 924-925 [218 Cal. Rptr. 572, 705 P.2d 1248]; People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 24-25 [164 Cal. Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468].) Silence in the record does not allow the inference that the court understood and performed its duty; the court must affirmatively articulate the fact that it has weighed probative value against prejudice. ( People v. Green, supra, at p. 25; People v. Frank (1985) 38 Cal.3d 711, 732 [214 Cal. Rptr. 801, 700 P.2d 415]; People v. Leonard (1983) 34 Cal.3d 183, 187-188 [193 Cal. Rptr. 171, 666 P.2d 28].) (7b) In the case at bar, the few comments the court made do not show affirmatively that it had engaged in a weighing process: I don't believe the tape is that emotional. You know, we get more emotional things presented to us through the media every day. It's a horrible thing, but I wouldn't in no way equate it to a photograph of a girl, for example, who has been brutalized and raped and murdered. It's nothing like that. The court's analysis is sufficient as far as it goes, but fails to mention the other side of the balance: the probative value, which might be so slight that even a modestly prejudicial piece of evidence should be excluded. Because the court did not make explicit its weighing process, the admission of the tape recording was error. (9a) To determine prejudice we must inquire whether the trial court would have reached a different result if it had weighed the relevant considerations and stated that fact on the record. (7c) The recording surely had some prejudicial effect  the passions of the jury must have been aroused by it, creating a danger that the jurors' desire to see someone brought to justice for this crime might interfere with their duty to meticulously appraise the evidence. The People make several arguments regarding the probative value of the tape recording. They suggest that the tape was useful in allowing the jury the rare ... benefit of hearing the last words of a murder victim. This is hardly probative of any relevant issue. They also point to its description of the assailant. But the information on the tape was minimal and cumulative; Officer Strigotte's recitation was far more useful and subsumed all relevant descriptions on the tape. To the extent this information was probative, it could as easily have been admitted in the form of a transcript, thus avoiding inflaming the passions of the jury by so vividly recreating the aftermath of the shooting. Absent a good reason there was no need to fill the courtroom with [the victim's] groans. ( People v. Love (1960) 53 Cal.2d 843, 857 [3 Cal. Rptr. 665, 350 P.2d 705].) The People also contend, however, that the tape was probative because it allowed the jury to determine that Schmidt-Till was relatively lucid despite his injuries. This was a crucial issue in the case, and listening to Schmidt-Till's voice on the tape is persuasive evidence that while he was frightened and in intense pain, his mental faculties had not yet been seriously impaired by his wounds. The jury was entitled to hear his confident tone when he described his assailant and declared that he knew the man even though he could not remember his name. The probative value of the recording in this respect outweighed any prejudice to defendant, and the court's failure to make its balancing of these factors explicit was thus harmless.