Court Opinion

ID: 9576252
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:22:20.680702+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:03:31.749871
License: Public Domain

CARTER, J.
I dissent.
Once again a majority of this court has permitted the use of evidence of crimes other than the one for which the defendant was on trial. As I said in my dissent in People v. Westek, 31 Cal.2d 469, 484 [190 P.2d 9], where the evidence of other crimes was offered by way of impeachment, “While the majority base their holding in this case, that evidence of other crimes was admissible, upon the ground that such evidence was offered by way of impeachment, the effect is ■ just the same as if it had been offered as a part of the prosecution’s case in chief [as here]. If it would have been immaterial and irrelevant as part of the prosecution’s case in chief, it was likewise immaterial and irrelevant as impeaching evidence.” I said there that “lip service” was paid to the general rule but that the majority was in effect abrogating *270the rule. That has been done in the instant ease where the rule is quoted at length as it was set forth in People v. Dabb, 32 Cal.2d 491, 499, 500 [197 P.2d 1], and then with legal dexterity, part of the evidence so admitted is held not prejudicial and the balance thereof is imaginatively held to be relevant “because of the striking similarity in significant respects between defendant’s conduct in that case and in the case of Welch. ...” There is no such similarity. The difference between the forgery of a check and murder should be apparent to almost anyone. Many people suffer from a need for money without resorting to murder to satisfy that want. There is also a great difference between assault and battery, and murder. This evidence was only admitted for its inflammatory effect and to say that it shows a “peculiar or characteristic behavior pattern of defendant which is manifest in the conduct of the transgressor in both crimes” is sheer sophistry. The only thing the prosecution needed to prove was where defendant had been prior to his arrest and that could have been done quite simply by witnesses who said merely that they had seen him in the various locations. There was no necessity of admitting evidence of alleged crimes committed by him in those locations and the only result to be achieved was that of prejudicing the defendant in the eyes of the jury—the precise thing the rule of inadmissibility of evidence of other crimes was designed to prevent. Nothing could be more prejudicial! I have fully set forth in other dissents the reasons why evidence of other crimes should not be admitted (see People v. Peete, 28 Cal.2d 306, 322 [169 P.2d 924]; People v. Zatzke, 33 Cal.2d 480, 486 [202 P.2d 1009]; People v. Westek, 31 Cal.2d 469, 483 [190 P.2d 9]; People v. Dabb, 32 Cal.2d 491, 501 [197 P.2d 1] [concurring opinion]) and it would be unnecessarily repetitious to repeat here what I stated in those eases.
I also disagree with the holding of the majority that venue was proved by a preponderance of the evidence. The only evidence leading to jurisdiction is the inference that time did not permit defendant’s story to be true. This inference is based on witness’ testimony that defendant left the café at 10 p. m. and returned at either 11:30 or 11:45 p. m. and testimony that the driving time to and from Tijuana would be one hour and 26 minutes; that defendant could not have moved the body in 19 minutes. It appears to me that this inference is a far cry from the preponderance of proof of venue required for. jurisdiction.
*271I also disagree with the majority holding that the admission in evidence of the dreadful and horrible objects and photographs did not constitute prejudicial error. I agree that it could serve no useful or proper purpose—I also agree that its only purpose was to prejudice defendant in the interest of securing a conviction by any means.
The majority has here condoned two highly prejudicial errors in the instant case: That of admitting in evidence testimony of other crimes allegedly committed by the defendant ; and photographs and objects which no normal or reasonable person could view without revulsion and hatred for the one who had, allegedly, committed an act bringing about such a vile result. The first error could have had no other purpose than to tell the jury what a bad person the defendant was and had been; the other error would insure the result desired by the prosecution—that defendant be shown no sympathy by a horrified and inflamed jury. Under the facts of any case, no matter what the record showed, these errors would be prejudicial. In addition, we have the extremely dubious showing of venue. It appears to me that if we do not honestly recognize the prejudicial nature of such errors and move to correct them, we shall be guilty of condoning such practices in the future and will, ultimately, deprive those accused of crime of due process of law in its most practical sense.
I would therefore reverse the judgment.