Opinion ID: 1173488
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admissibility of Defendant's Drug Use and Addiction

Text: One of the arresting officers testified, over defendant's objection, that when he was arrested defendant appeared to be under the influence of PCP (phencyclidine), that his arm bore puncture marks indicating recent heroin injections, and that in the officer's opinion defendant was a heroin addict with a daily habit costing between $25 and $75 daily. Such evidence was adduced for the sole purpose of establishing a possible financial motive for the attempted robbery with which defendant was charged. Defendant contends that any evidence of his drug use and narcotic addiction was inadmissible as being overly prejudicial when weighed against its slight probative value in this case. (Evid. Code, § 352.) I agree that the evidence was inadmissible. However, I would find the error harmless under the circumstances in this case. Prior cases have upheld the admission of evidence of the defendant's addiction or use of narcotics where such evidence is probative of defendant's motive for committing a drug-related crime. ( People v. Copeland (1959) 169 Cal. App.2d 713, 715 [338 P.2d 1] [forgery of drug prescriptions]; People v. O'Brand (1949) 92 Cal. App.2d 752, 754 [207 P.2d 1083] [burglary to steal narcotics]; see People v. Morales (1979) 88 Cal. App.3d 259, 264 [151 Cal. Rptr. 610] [possession or sale of narcotics].) Such evidence is potentially inflammatory and, in light of the possible prejudice to the defendant from disclosure of such evidence to the trier of fact, the cases preclude its admission for purposes of establishing a motive to commit those offenses which are unrelated to narcotics. ( People v. Bartlett (1967) 256 Cal. App.2d 787, 793-794 [64 Cal. Rptr. 503] [burglary]; People v. Davis (1965) 233 Cal. App.2d 156, 161-162 [43 Cal. Rptr. 357] [robbery]; People v. Enriquez (1961) 190 Cal. App.2d 481, 485 [11 Cal. Rptr. 889] [robbery/murder]; People v. Guiterrez (1957) 152 Cal. App.2d 115, 122-123 [312 P.2d 291] [attempted burglary].) As expressed by the Davis court, The law entitled appellant to stand before the jury presumptively innocent and of good character. In characterizing him as a narcotics user, ... the prosecution branded him as a habitual lawbreaker, a loathsome, unworthy person, predisposed to rob or steal to support his habit. (P. 162.) On the other hand, I cannot say that the error, standing alone, had such a grave impact as to require reversal of the judgment. Three defense witnesses corroborated defendant's alibi testimony. Even if the evidence of defendant's drug habit may have led the jury to doubt defendant's own version of events, no reason is suggested why that evidence would have cast doubts on the veracity of defendant's witnesses, who were not similarly tainted. Moreover, at trial defendant was positively identified as the gunman by four eyewitnesses, although their pretrial identifications were somewhat clouded. The jury was thus confronted with a credibility duel between three alibi witnesses and four eyewitnesses. Having examined the entire record, I do not believe that it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to defendant would have been reached if the drug use or addiction evidence had not been admitted. There thus occurred no miscarriage of justice under article VI, section 13, of the California Constitution. (See People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 834 [299 P.2d 243].) I would affirm the judgment and remand for resentencing under In re Culbreth (1976) 17 Cal.3d 330, 335 [130 Cal. Rptr. 719, 551 P.2d 23], and People v. Edwards (1981) 117 Cal. App.3d 436, 447-448 [172 Cal. Rptr. 652].