Opinion ID: 2509294
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Admission of Defendant's Ring

Text: Defendant contends that the trial court erroneously admitted into evidence his ring because there was insufficient foundation. The ring, which was apparently skull shaped, was relevant to Dr. Heuser's testimony about scratches on the inside of Nicole's thigh. Dr. Heuser testified the scratches were consistent with having been inflicted by the ring. Prior to her testimony, criminalist Robert Monson testified that the ring, along with a necklace and a pendant, was given to him by Detective Peloquin at the emergency room of West Valley Hospital. When asked whether Detective Peloquin indicated if he took these items from defendant, Monson answered, Yes. There were no objections to his testimony on either hearsay or foundational grounds. Detective Peloquin did not testify at trial. At the close of the prosecution's case, the prosecution moved for admission of the ring into evidence. The defense objected on grounds of lack of foundation and hearsay. Outside the presence of the jury, the trial court read into the record the prosecutor's examination of Monson regarding how he obtained the ring. The trial court noted this testimony came in without objection and concluded, that's the foundation. Defendant renews his claims that there was insufficient foundation and that Monson's testimony was hearsay. With respect to the hearsay claim, `[i]t is settled law that incompetent testimony, such as hearsay or conclusion, if received without objection takes on the attributes of competent proof when considered upon the question of sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding.' ( People v. Bailey (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 459, 463, 2 Cal. Rptr.2d 204, quoting Berry v. Chrome Crankshaft Co. (1958) 159 Cal.App.2d 549, 552, 324 P.2d 70; Estate of Fraysher (1956) 47 Cal.2d 131, 135, 301 P.2d 848 [evidence which is admitted ... without objection, although incompetent, should be considered in support of that court's action]; People v. Pierce (1979) 24 Cal.3d 199, 206, fn. 3, 155 Cal.Rptr. 657, 595 P.2d 91.) Here, applying these principles, the trial court reasonably concluded that defendant's failure to lodge a timely hearsay objection to Monson's testimony forfeited such objection. By contrast, his foundational objection to the admission of the exhibit was timely. We conclude, however, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence because Monson's testimony sufficiently connected defendant to the ring. ( People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529, 587, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 528, 2 P.3d 1081 [A trial court's exercise of discretion in admitting or excluding evidence is reviewable for abuse].) In any event, even if the trial court erred in admitting the evidence, the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt renders any such error harmless. ( Id. at p. 588, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 528, 2 P.3d 1081.)