Opinion ID: 2633286
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admissibility of Hector Tobar's Testimony Regarding Powell's Love of Guatemalan People and the Spanish Language

Text: Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion by admitting Hector Tobar's testimony regarding Powell's interest in Guatemala and its people, culture, and language. Tobar testified he and Powell took a 10-day trip to Guatemala in 1988. Powell became very fond of Guatemala and wanted to stay there because she loved the people so much. She began to learn the Spanish language and would practice whenever she could find someone to speak with her. On one occasion, Tobar visited Powell in the hospital where she worked and saw her talk to people in Spanish in the cafeteria and other places. Sheshe loved to be able to talk to people. At a bench conference, the trial court denied counsel's motion to strike Tobar's testimony on the ground it was irrelevant. Defendant contends the evidence was irrelevant. We disagree. As stated, relevant evidence is evidence 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 test of relevance is whether the evidence tends `logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference to establish material facts such as identity, intent, or motive.' ( People v. Scheid (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1, 13, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 348, 939 P.2d 748.) Defendant and several of the construction workers whom Powell fed on occasion and who knocked on Powell's door several times a day were Spanish speaking. Braziel heard Powell speak Spanish on the day of the murder. Evidence that Powell enjoyed practicing her Spanish language skills by talking with Spanish-speaking people had a tendency to explain why she took an interest in the construction workers next door, including defendant, and shared her food and drink with them. Thus, the evidence was relevant to establish the nature of the relationship between Powell and the workersthat is, a nonsexual relationship consistent with the prosecution's theory that Powell's interest in the workers, including defendant, was other than sexual and that she feared defendant's unwanted attention. In light of its relevance under this theory, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence. ( People v. Taylor (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1155, 1173, 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 827, 34 P.3d 937.) On appeal, defendant also argues that evidence of Powell's love for Guatemala and its people and her enjoyment in speaking Spanish with others was inadmissible under Evidence Code section 1101 [10] to show Powell was friendly with defendant simply because he was Guatemalan and spoke Spanish. He further argues this evidence was not properly admitted under Evidence Code section 1103 [11] because he had not introduced evidence showing Powell's dislike of Guatemala, its people, or its language. Counsel's objection to this testimony on the sole ground of relevance, however, did not preserve for appeal his present contention that the testimony was improper character evidence. (Evid.Code, § 353; People v. Clark (1992) 3 Cal.4th 41, 127-128, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 554, 833 P.2d 561.) His claim is thus forfeited on this ground. In any event, this claim is without merit. Evidence may be relevant and admissible for one purpose even though it is inadmissible for another purpose. (See Evid.Code, § 355; People v. Eagles (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 330, 340, 183 Cal.Rptr. 784.) Tobar's testimony relating Powell's love for Guatemala, its people, and its language was admissible to explain Powell's motive in interacting with the construction workers, including defendant, on the day of the murder. Further, we disagree with defendant's assertion that Tobar's testimony created a uniquely sympathetic view of the victim in the guilt phase. (See former CALJIC No. 1.00 [the jury must not be influenced by sympathy]; People v. Fields (1983) 35 Cal.3d 329, 362, 197 Cal.Rptr. 803, 673 P.2d 680 [appeals to the sympathy or passions of the jury are inappropriate at the guilt phase].) A court need not exclude otherwise admissible evidence merely because it might generate sympathy for a crime victim.