Opinion ID: 2515770
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: Evidence of Threat to Sheriffs Sergeant

Text: During the penalty phase, the defense moved to exclude evidence that defendant threatened to kill a sheriffs sergeant who assisted in subduing him after his attempted escape from the Los Angeles County jail. The defense argued that the threat did not violate any law and thus was not criminal activity within the meaning of section 190.3, factor (b). The prosecution argued in reply that the threat was relevant as part of the escape attempt. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant contends the ruling was reversible error. At the penalty phase, the jury is permitted to consider [t]he presence or absence of criminal activity by the defendant which involved the use or attempted use of force or violence or the express or implied threat to use force or violence. (§ 190.3, factor (b).) As used in this factor, the term criminal activity includes only conduct that violates a penal statute. ( People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1169, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 235, 885 P.2d 1; People v. Boyd (1985) 38 Cal.3d 762, 772, 215 Cal.Rptr. 1, 700 P.2d 782.) Here, respondent does not argue that defendant's threat to kill the sheriffs sergeant, by itself, violated a penal statute, [3] but instead that the threat was admissible as part of the attempted escape, which did. We agree. Under section 190.3, factor (b), the prosecution may introduce evidence to show not only the conduct establishing the criminal violation, but also evidence of any relevant surrounding circumstances. ( People v. Kirkpatrick, supra, 7 Cal.4th at pp. 1013-1014, 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 818, 874 P.2d 248; People v. Ashmus (1991) 54 Cal.3d 932, 985, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 112, 820 P.2d 214.) In particular, threats made while in custody immediately after an otherwise admissible violent criminal incident are themselves admissible under factor (b). ( People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701, 759, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 203, 976 P.2d 754; People v. Montiel (1993) 5 Cal.4th 877, 916-917, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 705, 855 P.2d 1277.) Here, defendant's threats against the sheriffs sergeant were relevant to an understanding of the violent potential of defendant's attempted escape. Defendant contends that the trial court's ruling admitting evidence of these threats denied him various rights under the state and federal Constitutions, but he did not object on these grounds in the trial court, and he does not argue here that there are constitutional standards of admissibility more exacting than the statutory standards imposed by the Evidence Code. Having concluded that the evidence was properly admitted under statutory evidence standards, we also reject these belated and derivative constitutional claims.