Opinion ID: 2633881
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Exclusion of Evidence Regarding Sentence of Life Imprisonment Without the Possibility of Parole

Text: Defendant sought to admit the testimony of an employee of the California Department of Corrections concerning the conditions of prison confinement such as the size of cells, the restrictions upon prisoners' activities, the lack of privacy, the treatment of sexual offenders by other inmates, and the availability of prison programs for defendant's benefit. The trial court denied the request, based upon our decision in People v. Thompson (1988) 45 Cal.3d 86, 138-139, 246 Cal.Rptr. 245, 753 P.2d 37. Defendant contends the exclusion of this evidence was error under section 190.3 and in various ways violated his due process and Eighth Amendment rights. Evidence concerning the rigors of confinement has no bearing on the character or background of the individual offender or the circumstances of the capital offense. It is therefore irrelevant and inadmissible under section 190.3, factor (k). ( People v. Ray (1996) 13 Cal.4th 313, 352-353, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 296, 914 P.2d 846 ( Ray ); see also Thompson, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 139, 246 Cal.Rptr. 245, 753 P.2d 37 [Describing future conditions of confinement for a person serving life without possibility of parole involves speculation as to what future officials in another branch of government will or will not do].) Moreover, even under the Eighth Amendment to the federal Constitution, the trial court retains the authority to exclude irrelevant evidence in the first instance. (See Lockett v. Ohio (1978) 438 U.S. 586, 604, fn. 12, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973.) ( Frye, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 947, fn. 1, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 25, 959 P.2d 183; see also DeSantis, supra, 2 Cal.4th at pp. 1249-1250, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 628, 831 P.2d 1210.) There was no statutory error or violation of defendant's constitutional rights in the exclusion of the proffered evidence.