Opinion ID: 2633286
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Admissibility of Rebuttal Evidence Used in Re-creation of Crime Scene

Text: Defendant contends the trial court improperly admitted in rebuttal a hamper that was used in the prosecution's re-creation of the crime scene without establishing that it met foundational requirements. He testified in his own defense that after he found Powell on her utility room floor, he wedged himself between the water cooler and the hamper and tried to lift her by her shoulders. Defendant put Powell back on the floor when he realized she was too injured to move. In doing so, he propped himself up on something, although he could not remember if it was the wall, trash can, or hamper. During rebuttal, the prosecution introduced a series of exhibits, including a substitute hamper (the original had not been collected as evidence), that reconstructed the crime scene in a courtroom mock-up. The courtroom mock-up was also transported to the crime scene for a jury view. Detective Wachter testified that a wastebasket collected from the crime scene had a price sticker from an Armstrong store. Assuming the hamper was also purchased at an Armstrong store, Wachter purchased a substitute hamper that was identical in appearance to the hamper lying next to the victim's body at the time of the murder. Defense counsel objected to admission of the hamper on the grounds that there was no showing the substitute hamper was made of the same material and had the same strength and flexibility as the original hamper, and its admission therefore, was improper. The trial court overruled counsel's objection and admitted the substitute hamper, finding the hamper was of a size similar to the one depicted in the crime scene photographs. It also noted the jury understood the original hamper was not available. On appeal, defendant renews his challenge to the hamper's admissibility, When, as here, the relevance of evidence depends on the existence of a preliminary fact, the proffered evidence is inadmissible unless the trial court finds there is sufficient evidence to sustain a finding of the existence of the preliminary fact. (Evid.Code, § 403, subd. (a)(1).) That is, the trial court must determine whether the evidence is sufficient for a trier of fact to reasonably find the existence of the preliminary fact by a preponderance of the evidence. ( People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal.4th 799, 832, 55 Cal. Rptr.2d 347, 919 P.2d 1280.) The court should exclude the proffered evidence only if the `showing of preliminary facts is too weak to support a favorable determination by the jury.' ( People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 466, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 525, 907 P.2d 373.) A trial court's decision as to whether the foundational evidence is sufficient is reviewed for abuse of discretion. ( Ibid. ) The trial court did not abuse its discretion. Defendant argues the prosecution failed to establish the preliminary fact that the substitute hamper was similarly designed and constructed as the one next to the victim's body at the time of the murder. But the flaw in this argument is that because the original hamper was not recovered from the crime scene, its design and construction could not be established at trial. Contrary to defendant's assertions, the prosecutor did not invite the jury to conduct a physical experiment on the substitute hamper in order to test its strength or construction. The prosecutor properly encouraged the jury to test defendant's testimony by using the substitute hamper and other objects of the mock-up to determine whether defendant could have stood between the water cooler and hamper, adjacent to Powell's knee, when he purportedly lifted her up by her shoulders. ( People v. Baldine (2001) 94 Cal. App.4th 773, 778, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 570 [jurors may use an exhibit according to its nature to aid them in weighing the evidence, but not to generate new evidence].) There was ample evidence from which the jury could determine the substitute hamper resembled the original hamper under conditions substantially similar to those prevailing at the time of Powell's murder. Detective Wachter testified that the substitute hamper was identical in appearance to the original. The forensic artist who created the courtroom mock-up used the hexagonal tiles of the utility room floor and the wall as a grid to plot the coordinates of the hamper, water cooler, Powell's body, and other items. He estimated the placement of these items were accurate to one inch. The jury viewed the crime scene and could compare the relative size and locations of the objects in the mock-up, including the substitute hamper, to the dimensions of the actual utility room. In addition, the jury could compare the substitute hamper with the hamper resting next to Powell's body, as depicted in photographs of the crime scene.