Opinion ID: 1119859
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Cross-examination of the Pathologist

Text: (8a) During the cross-examination of Dr. Irving Root, the pathologist who performed both autopsies, the defense sought to elicit testimony regarding the amount of alcohol or cocaine in the victims' systems. The prosecution objected on relevancy grounds, and a hearing was held outside the presence of the jury. Defense counsel argued that the evidence goes to the character of the victim, and that it was relevant to a possible kidnapping claim. The court ruled that in the absence of prosecution evidence suggesting kidnapping, evidence on that point would not be relevant. Dr. Root stated that the alcohol or cocaine content did not contribute to the cause of death of either victim. The court sustained the relevancy objection. Defendant contends the court erred. (9) However, only relevant evidence is admissible, that is, evidence including evidence relevant to the credibility of a witness or hearsay declarant, having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action. (Evid. Code, ง 210; People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 19 [164 Cal. Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468].) The court is vested with wide discretion in determining relevance under this standard. ( People v. Green, supra, at p. 19.) (8b) We perceive no abuse of discretion. The court is not required to admit evidence that merely makes the victim of a crime look bad. Consumption of cocaine or alcohol did not contribute to the cause of death, the victims' character was not at issue, and there was no claim of kidnapping (even assuming alcohol or cocaine consumption would somehow be relevant to a kidnapping charge). For the first time on appeal, defendant argues such consumption was relevant to the defense of consent or reasonable belief in consent as to the rape charges. Such a defense was neither relied upon at trial nor suggested as a basis for admission of the evidence. Furthermore, evidence of substance abuse, without more, would be meaningless to a jury's consideration of the victims' conduct. The court properly disallowed the evidence.