Opinion ID: 2600675
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Admission of evidence of defendant's molestation of the Richards girls

Text: Defendant contends the trial court erred in admitting evidence establishing that the victims Ruth and Marie Richards were sexually molested at the time of the murders. The challenged evidence included (1) the portion of defendant's tape-recorded account of the murders when he was asked concerning, and vigorously denied committing, any sexual crimes with regard to these victims, (2) the testimony of an evidence technician and of a sheriff's deputy who first arrived at the Richards crime scene concerning the positions and condition of the bodies, and (3) the victims' bloody underpants. At the guilt phase, a single photograph depicting victim Ruth Richards at the scene lying prone, with her legs spread apart, underpants wrapped around one ankle, a bloody handprint on her buttocks, and blood smears consistent with the body having been moved, also was admitted into evidence. At the penalty phase, a similar photograph of Marie Richards was admitted into evidence. Defendant's claim as it relates to that evidence is discussed below. At trial, the defense attempted to eliminate or reduce the impact of evidence suggesting any sexual misconduct with these victims. The defense moved in limine to exclude any photographic evidence of suggestive positioning of the bodies, and was successful to the extent of limiting the admission of the photographs to the two described above. The defense moved to redact the portion of defendant's tape-recorded interview and confession concerning removal of the victims' underwear and the presence of bloody handprints on their legs and thighs, to exclude the evidence of the victims' bloody underpants, and twice requested a mistrial during the prosecutor's examination of the evidence technician, who was asked to describe the condition of the bodies by referring to additional photographs not permitted to be shown directly to the jury. These motions were denied. (13) Defendant asserts the evidence was irrelevant to any material issue of disputed fact, observing that at trial he offered to stipulate to the admission of evidence relating to the positions and condition of the bodies. Relevant evidence is that having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action. (Evid. Code, § 210.) The concept of relevance is very broad ( People v. Scheid (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1, 16 [65 Cal.Rptr.2d 348, 939 P.2d 748]), encompassing evidence depicting the crime scene and injuries inflicted ( People v. Heard (2003) 31 Cal.4th 946, 972-974 [4 Cal.Rptr.3d 131, 75 P.3d 53]), and that bearing on the defendant's account of events and state of mind. Here, the evidence also tended to establish defendant's attitude toward his victims and that he acted methodically and deliberately rather than as the result of uncontrollable impulses arising from his ingestion of drugs and alcohol. ( Heard, supra, 31 Cal.4th at pp. 972-974; People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 410 [63 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 935 P.2d 708]; People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 133-134 [36 Cal.Rptr.2d 474, 885 P.2d 887].) In addition, the prosecution is not required to accept a stipulation `if the effect would be to deprive the state's case of its persuasiveness and forcefulness,' nor is it obligated to present its case in the sanitized fashion suggested by the defense. ( People v. Garceau (1993) 6 Cal.4th 140, 182 [24 Cal.Rptr.2d 664, 862 P.2d 664] ( Garceau ); see People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005, 1050-1051 [60 Cal.Rptr.2d 225, 929 P.2d 544]; People v. Pinholster (1992) 1 Cal.4th 865, 959 [4 Cal.Rptr.2d 765, 824 P.2d 571].) The prosecutor need not stipulate to proof in place of photographic evidence. ( Bradford, supra, 14 Cal.4th at pp. 1050-1051.) (14) Defendant also contends the trial court erred in failing to exclude the evidence as substantially more prejudicial than probative under Evidence Code section 352, and to engage in the weighing process required by that statute. The circumstance that evidence is adverse to a defendant's case does not render it prejudicial within the meaning of section 352. ( People v. Padilla (1995) 11 Cal.4th 891, 925 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 426, 906 P.2d 388] ( Padilla ).) In applying this statute we evaluate the risk of  `undue' prejudice, that is, `evidence which uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against the defendant as an individual and which has very little effect on the issues,' not the prejudice `that naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence.' ( Padilla, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 925; see People v. Gionis (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1196, 1214 [40 Cal.Rptr.2d 456, 892 P.2d 1199]; People v. Karis (1988) 46 Cal.3d 612, 638 [250 Cal.Rptr. 659, 758 P.2d 1189].) In particular, we have rejected the claim that the `sexually suggestive nature' of photographs of a murder victim created undue prejudice, because it was the nature of the crime ... that made it necessary for the jury to see her without clothes. ( People v. Navarette (2003) 30 Cal.4th 458, 496 [133 Cal.Rptr.2d 89, 66 P.3d 1182] ( Navarette ).) In the present case, the trial court carefully restricted the photographic evidence of the victims and limited presentation of the crime scene details largely to the information provided through witnesses such as the evidence technician, who referred to photographs that were not exhibited to the jurors. It is evident the trial court weighed the prejudicial impact of that and other evidence against its probative value, determining the evidence was admissible. (Cf. Navarette, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 495.) Having reviewed the photographic evidence in question, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the risk of undue prejudice from its admission did not substantially outweigh its probative value. Defendant suggests the jurors must have assigned undue weight to Detective David Edmonds's statement, during his in-flight interview with defendant, that Edmonds believed defendant molested these victims. In the context of the jury's consideration of defendant's entire confession, we conclude Edmonds's comments reflect nothing more than appropriate questioning regarding defendant's account of the crimes and could not have had any undue impact on the jury.