Opinion ID: 1351576
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Defendant's Motion to Exclude Evidence of the Conduct Underlying His Prior Felony Convictions

Text: Prior to the commencement of the penalty phase, defendant moved in limine to exclude evidence of the conduct underlying his prior felony convictions. The ground was in substance that such evidence was not relevant, or at least not sufficiently relevant, to any issue material to penalty. As pertinent here, the argument was to the following effect: under penalty factor (c) of Penal Code section 190.3 (hereafter section 190.3), The presence or absence of any prior felony conviction was indeed material; but the evidence sought to be excluded had no tendency in reason  or at least, no sufficient tendency  to prove or disprove the existence of any such conviction. Defendant appears to have assumed that the People sought to prove only the fact of his prior felony convictions. The People opposed the motion. They argued in substance as follows: contrary to defendant's assumption, they sought to prove not only the fact of his prior felony convictions, but also the underlying conduct; under penalty factor (b) of section 190.3, The presence or absence of [other] 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 was also material; the evidence sought to be excluded had a substantial tendency to prove the existence of such criminal activity. The court denied the motion. It determined in substance that evidence of the conduct underlying defendant's prior felony convictions was indeed relevant to the material issue of the existence of other criminal activity involving the use or threat of force or violence. In pertinent part, it reasoned: I think that if the prior conviction involves violent criminal activity, then the Court has no alternative but to allow into evidence the circumstances surrounding any prior felony conviction. I don't know. I'm simply ignorant on what the facts are going to show or what the circumstances are surrounding any of the prior felony convictions. Without significant objection by defendant, the People subsequently introduced, and the court received, specific evidence concerning the conduct underlying the prior felony convictions. (11) Defendant now contends that the court's ruling was error. He must be deemed to challenge the crucial resolution of the question of relevance. As noted, such determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion. No abuse appears. The People may, of course, seek to prove both the fact of prior felony convictions and any underlying criminal activity involving the use or threat of force or violence. ( People v. Karis (1988) 46 Cal.3d 612, 640 [250 Cal. Rptr. 659, 758 P.2d 1189]; People v. Melton (1988) 44 Cal.3d 713, 764 [244 Cal. Rptr. 867, 750 P.2d 741]; see People v. Gates (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1168, 1203 [240 Cal. Rptr. 666, 743 P.2d 301].) Contrary to defendant's claim, the evidence sought to be excluded appears plainly, and highly, relevant to the material issue of the existence of such criminal activity. Defendant may be understood to argue that the People should have been allowed to prove only the fact of the criminal activity, and that they should have been permitted to use only the record of the prior felony convictions in making their proof. But in People v. Karis, supra, 46 Cal.3d at page 640, we effectively held that as a general matter, the People may prove any pertinent circumstance of the criminal activity, and may do so in any permissible way. Defendant does not persuade us that in this case the People should have been subjected to the restrictions he now urges. Defendant also contends that the subsequent admission of the specific evidence concerning the conduct underlying his prior felony convictions was error in and of itself. The point lacks merit. The evidence was plainly, and highly, relevant to the material issue of the existence of other criminal activity involving the use or threat of force or violence. Defendant claims that the ruling and subsequent admission of the specific evidence concerning the conduct underlying his prior felony convictions violated certain rights assertedly guaranteed criminal defendants by, inter alia, the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution  viz., due process of law (U.S. Const., Amends. V, XIV); equal protection of the laws ( id., Amend. XIV); freedom from an impermissible risk of arbitrary and capricious decisionmaking ( id., Amends. VIII, XIV); and reliable penalty determination ( ibid. ). (12) We reject the point on procedural grounds. Defendant failed to put forth a sufficient constitutional argument when he made his motion in limine. He also failed to make a sufficient constitutional objection when the People introduced the specific evidence. Accordingly, he may not raise the underlying claim here. (See People v. Gordon, supra, 50 Cal.3d at pp. 1251-1252 [dealing with absence of argument]; People v. Rogers, supra, 21 Cal.3d at p. 548 [dealing with absence of objection].) (13) We also reject the point on the merits. The United States Supreme Court has often declared that states have the broadest possible range in deciding what negative aspects of the defendant's character and background are relevant to the sentencing determination. ( People v. Balderas (1985) 41 Cal.3d 144, 204 [222 Cal. Rptr. 184, 711 P.2d 480].) Evidence of other criminal activity involving the use or threat of force or violence falls squarely within that range. ( Id. at p. 205, fn. 32.) We are not persuaded that the admission of such evidence  in this particular case or generally  affects, in any constitutionally significant way, the fairness of the proceedings, the treatment of similarly situated defendants, the risk of arbitrary and capricious decisionmaking, or the reliability of the outcome. (See People v. Karis, supra, 46 Cal.3d at pp. 639-641 [impliedly concluding as much as to risk and reliability]; People v. Balderas, supra, 41 Cal.3d at pp. 204-205 [impliedly concluding as much as to fairness, risk, and reliability].)