Opinion ID: 1367717
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: Admission of Frank Medina's Testimony

Text: (39) Defendant introduced evidence that, at the time of the charged offenses, he had conquered his addiction to drugs and had converted to Christianity. In rebuttal, the People called as a witness Frank Medina, who testified that, subsequent to the commission of the murder, when defendant was in Arizona, defendant was using heroin and asked Medina where defendant could shoplift clothing. Defendant later was in possession of some new clothing, which he attempted to sell to Medina and others in order to obtain money to purchase drugs. Defendant contends Medina's testimony was inadmissible. As we held in People v. Boyd (1985) 38 Cal.3d 762, 776 [215 Cal. Rptr. 1, 700 P.2d 782], and People v. Rodriguez, supra, 42 Cal.3d 730, 791, evidence which would be inadmissible at the penalty phase under section 190.3, as part of the prosecution's case-in-chief, may be admissible on rebuttal to counter evidence of good character introduced by the defendant. `The theory for permitting such rebuttal evidence and argument is not that it proves a statutory aggravating factor, but that it undermines defendant's claim that his good character weighs in favor of mercy.' ( People v. Fierro, supra, 1 Cal.4th 173, 237, italics in original.) `[T]he scope of rebuttal must be specific, and evidence presented or argued as rebuttal must relate directly to a particular incident or character trait defendant offers in his own behalf.' [Citation.] ( Id. at pp. 237-238.) Medina's testimony satisfied those requirements. Defendant had introduced evidence that, prior to the crimes, he had overcome his heroin addiction and had converted to Christianity. Medina's testimony tended to cast doubt upon defendant's evidence of his good character by establishing that defendant had used drugs and had stolen to support his drug habit while in Arizona. This was proper rebuttal.