Opinion ID: 1351145
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Testimony of Charlene's attorney

Text: As noted above, defendant asserted Charlene simply fabricated her testimony against him. To prove this point, he questioned why Charlene had waited so long to tell anyone  including her original attorney  about the crimes, and he suggested that she invented her testimony in order to escape primary responsibility for the charges. To rebut this claim the prosecution presented the testimony of Hamilton Hintz, Charlene's second attorney. Through Hintz's testimony the prosecution was able to show that Charlene disclosed her full knowledge of the various crimes to Hintz (and his cocounsel, Fern Laetham) because she was impressed with Hintz's background, and trusted him. Defendant, reasserting his numerous objections to Hintz's testimony at trial, claims the testimony was irrelevant and hearsay. a. Relevance. (19) Without offering any apposite citation, defendant asserts Hintz's testimony concerning his background and qualifications was irrelevant. The court ruled otherwise, concluding it was relevant to show why Charlene trusted and ultimately elected to confide in Hintz, when she had not confided in others. We find no basis to question the court's exercise of its wide discretion on this issue. (See People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 19 [164 Cal. Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468].) b. Hearsay. As noted above, Hintz testified that Charlene confessed to him her involvement in defendant's various killings, and implicated defendant in each of the killings. On cross-examination of Charlene, defendant repeatedly suggested she implicated him only because she had made a deal with the prosecutor. To prove she implicated him before any deal with the prosecutor was contemplated, the People offered Hintz's testimony about Charlene's prior consistent statements to Hintz. (See Evid. Code, § 791, subd. (b), authorizing evidence of a declarant's prior consistent statements if, An express or implied charge has been made that his testimony at the hearing is recently fabricated or is influenced by bias or other improper motive and the statement was made before the bias, motive for fabrication, or other improper motive is alleged to have arisen.) (20) We are reluctant to question the trial court's apparent determination that Charlene's revelations to Hintz were made before the bias, motive for fabrication, or other improper motive is alleged to have arisen. But even assuming the court erred in this regard, we find no reasonable probability the verdict would have been different without Hintz's testimony about Charlene's prior statements. Charlene's testimony, together with the other evidence outlined above, convincingly established defendant's guilt of the various crimes.