Opinion ID: 1237936
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Exclusion of Defendant's Writings

Text: The defense offered a number of defendant's writings as evidence in mitigation to show his sensitivity, compassion, and writing ability. These writings were: (1) a two-page short story entitled Shorty and the Apple Orchard about a child's experience with a horse; (2) a seventeen-page description of life in prison, entitled Chapter Two: San Quentin State Prison 1970-1971; (3) a three-page essay entitled A Boxcar Realization discussing how prison inmates repress their emotions to avoid appearing vulnerable and how this causes them to dismiss or ignore the emotional trauma suffered by crime victims; (4) a two-page letter of apology, apparently addressed to the defense investigator; (5) a seven-page letter of advice to a friend facing imprisonment for the first time; (6) a five-page autobiographical sketch, entitled Incorrigible, about defendant's experiences with the juvenile justice system in Oregon; (7) a five-page essay entitled The Kind of Juror I Would Like; and (8) twenty-three pages of notes and letters addressed to the trial judge protesting the shackling order and jail conditions during the trial. The trial court admitted all of these exhibits except the last, which the court excluded as hearsay containing an incomplete and misleading account of the justification for the shackling order. (123) Defendant maintains that the ruling is erroneous because the letters and notes to the trial judge were not offered for the truth of the matters stated but merely to demonstrate defendant's capacity for self-expression. We find no error in the court's ruling. Given the large volume of defendant's writings that were received in evidence, the writings in question were properly excluded as cumulative on the issue of defendant's ability to express himself in writing. (See People v. Redmond (1981) 29 Cal.3d 904, 912 [176 Cal. Rptr. 780, 633 P.2d 976].)