Opinion ID: 1196295
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Testimony of Family Members and Admission of Photographs of Victims in Life

Text: Over defendant's objection at the guilt phase, the prosecution called as a witness Ebora Alexander's son Kermit, a former college and professional football player well known in Los Angeles. He identified life photographs of his mother and sister and also testified he had never seen defendant at his mother's house. Defendant also objected when the mothers of Damani Garner and Damon Bonner identified their sons from life pictures. They similarly denied ever seeing defendant at the Alexander residence. (25) (See fn. 9.), (26a) According to defendant, none of the witnesses should have testified because he offered to stipulate to the matters contained in their testimony and their presence imparted undue emotional impact to the proceedings. [9] (See People v. Hall (1980) 28 Cal.3d 143, 152 [167 Cal. Rptr. 844, 616 P.2d 826], disapproved on other grounds in People v. Valentine (1986) 42 Cal.3d 170, 181 [228 Cal. Rptr. 25, 720 P.2d 913].) Defendant's claim has limited merit: There was no dispute as to the identity of the person[s] killed  evidently the only issue on which the photograph[s were] relevant  and therefore the photograph[s] should have been excluded because [they] bore on no contested issue. [Citation.] The error, however, must be deemed harmless. `As we have seen, from the evidence presented at the guilt phase this was not a close case in which the jury's sympathy for the victim[s] may have led it to improperly convict [defendant]; the evidence of defendant's participation in the crimes was clear and uncontradicted. Accordingly, the admission of the photograph[s] does not warrant reversal.' [Citation.] [10] ( People v. Hendricks (1987) 43 Cal.3d 584, 594-595 [238 Cal. Rptr. 66, 737 P.2d 1350], citing and quoting People v. Ramos (1982) 30 Cal.3d 553, 577-578 [180 Cal. Rptr. 266, 639 P.2d 908], revd. on other grounds sub nom. California v. Ramos (1983) 463 U.S. 992 [77 L.Ed.2d 1171, 103 S.Ct. 3446].) The trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting a proffered stipulation that none of the witnesses had seen defendant at their mother's house before the killings. (27) To preserve this issue for review, a defendant must specify in sufficient detail the substance of any proposed agreement on facts. (See Harris v. Spinali Auto Sales, Inc. (1966) 240 Cal. App.2d 447, 452 [49 Cal. Rptr. 610]; see also Stow v. Superior Court (1918) 178 Cal. 140, 143 [172 P. 598].) Otherwise, the trial court cannot determine whether the prosecution is obligated to accept the stipulation, and the appellate court cannot evaluate its exercise of discretion. (See, e.g., People v. Bonin, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 848.) (26b) Here, counsel did not actually offer to stipulate that defendant had never been in the Alexander house or, at the very least, did not specify the factual matters he would admit. When considered in context, the willingness to stipulate clearly applied to the identification of the victims from their photographs in life and nothing else potentially in dispute. Since crucial aspects of the prosecution's case turned on the presence of defendant's palm print on the trunk in the victims' bedroom, any relevant admission would have to incorporate the theory that it was placed there the day of the murders. Without a proposed stipulation, we cannot assess whether it might have been so ambiguous in form or limited in scope as to deprive the prosecution of the legitimate force and effect of material evidence ( Fuentes v. Tucker (1947) 31 Cal.2d 1, 7 [187 P.2d 752]; see also People v. Brown (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1247, 1262 [248 Cal. Rptr. 817, 756 P.2d 204]) or to hamper a coherent presentation of the evidence.... [11] ( People v. Hall, supra, 28 Cal.3d at p. 153; cf. Evid. Code, § 354 [no reversal of verdict for erroneous exclusion of evidence except on offer of proof].) We also find no impropriety in permitting Kermit Alexander to testify. Whatever the witness's celebrity status, nothing in the record suggests any sympathy or other untoward influence engendered by his brief appearance and unemotional testimony. (See People v. Carrera (1989) 49 Cal.3d 291, 330-331 [261 Cal. Rptr. 348, 777 P.2d 121].) We decline to formulate a rule of admissibility premised on the extent to which a witness may or may not otherwise be known to the general public. (Cf. ibid. [declining to presume prejudice from testimony of murder victim's parent].)