Opinion ID: 1226896
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Overruling of Objection to Letters

Text: Outside the presence of the jury, the People moved for a ruling on the admissibility of portions of four letters written by defendant in the Tokyo Detention House. Three of the letters were addressed to his wife Allison: I am really glad Frank [Plunk, Allison's former husband,] came through, just think he might have loaned us the money all of the time. My trip to Cal wasn't in vain. I finally found out you truly loved me and you got your bills paid. That is a pretty good haul for both of us. I would sacrifice everything for you. Hell, look I have. Actions speak louder than words. You got the money you wanted and now you ignore my need. (See pt. II.B., ante. ) The fourth letter was addressed to his father: I will probably be here til damn close to Christmas, maybe even longer. Thank you for sending my little family $4,000. The People sought (1) to show that around the time of the murder of Hanson and Blount, defendant and Allison were experiencing difficulties in their financial situation, and that defendant came to California from Japan to alleviate that condition; and (2) to corroborate the testimony of Edward Rogers on that point. Defendant objected to the portions of the four letters as irrelevant under Evidence Code section 210 and as substantially more prejudicial than probative under Evidence Code section 352. He argued, in substance, that the evidence was of no consequence to the action, and might allow an assertedly improper inference about the provenance of the $4,000 mentioned in the letter to his father  to the effect that the money was given to his father by Doug Mickey to send to his wife and may have come from the Eric Hanson house. The People responded, in substance, that the portions of the four letters were relevant to the issue of motive, and were not substantially more prejudicial than probative. They offered suggestions to prevent the assertedly improper inference that defendant feared, including a statement to the jury that they were introducing the evidence only to show motive, and even an agreement not to present the portion of the letter to his father. Defendant refused. Overruling defendant's objection, the trial court determined that the portions of the four letters were admissible. Before the jury, the prosecutor stated that the evidence will be offered for the limited purpose of showing that Mr. Mickey and his family  Mr. Mickey's family rather in Japan were in a state of financial distress when he came to California September of 1980. Defense counsel responded: I object to this as a conclusion on his part from what is contained in those letters.... The prosecutor replied: I will withdraw the purpose, Your Honor, that is fine. The evidence was subsequently introduced. (28) Defendant now contends that the trial court erred in this matter. The appropriate standard of review for a ruling on admissibility over an objection of irrelevance and/or undue prejudice is abuse of discretion. ( People v. Gordon, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 1239.) No abuse appears. The court could have reasonably concluded that the portions of the four letters were relevant and were not substantially more prejudicial than probative. The evidence showed motive  and did so strongly. By contrast, it supported the assertedly improper inference of provenance only weakly, if at all. Defendant argues to the contrary, but unpersuasively.