Court Opinion

ID: 9625912
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:55:34.394259+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:43.228446
License: Public Domain

KENNARD, J., Dissenting.
Reversing the Court of Appeal, the majority upholds the trial court’s exclusion of proposed defense testimony. Unlike the majority, I find the excluded testimony to be relevant. In my view, the exclusion was prejudicial error, and therefore I would reverse the judgment.
I.
Because of the importance of the facts here, I recite them in detail.
At 1:30 a.m. on October 11, 1995, Valerie Sanchez was the victim of a drive-by shooting in a Hollywood neighborhood “claimed” by the 18th Street gang. She died at a hospital a few hours later. There was no physical evidence linking anyone to the murder. Defendant was convicted solely on the basis of testimony by the prosecution’s star witness, Tommy Merritt.
This was Merritt’s testimony: At the time of the murder, Merritt lived in a five-story apartment building at 1830 North Cherokee in Hollywood. At 1:30 a.m. on October 11, 1995, he was walking his dog on the roof of the apartment building. The street below was well lit. He noticed a car circling the block several times. A passenger was leaning out of the window. Based *15on the passenger’s mustache, goatee, and a mark on his left cheek, Merritt recognized the passenger as defendant, whom he had seen on previous occasions.
As Merritt was looking away from the street, he heard a shout in Spanish and then a gunshot. When he looked down at the street, he saw defendant leaning out of the passenger window with his arms extended. Merritt did not see a gun, but he saw two white flashes coming from defendant’s hands. Merritt ducked below the ledge of the roof. He heard more gunshots and the sound of a car speeding away. He then looked over the roof’s edge and saw victim Sanchez staggering on the street below. Merritt went back to his apartment; he did not call the police.
The next day, October 12, Merritt was outside when a police officer asked him about a truck parked nearby. Merritt responded to the questions; he did not mention the shooting. Later that afternoon, “Pelón,” a member of the 18th Street gang, came up to Merritt on the street and threatened to hurt him if Merritt talked to the police. As Merritt walked back to his apartment building, he saw defendant with Anthony Gutierrez, an 18th Street gang member. Merritt approached Gutierrez to assure him that he would not talk to the police about the shooting and to ask Gutierrez to tell Pelón to leave him alone. But defendant stepped in front of Merritt and told him to return to his apartment. When Merritt continued to follow defendant and Gutierrez, defendant raised his shirt, revealing the handle of a gun tucked into his waistband. Defendant then put the barrel of the gun under Merritt’s chin and told him to keep his mouth shut or “I could do to you what I did to them.” Merritt went back to his apartment. The next day, he mentioned this incident and the shooting to the police.
On cross-examination, defense counsel asked Merritt: “Did you often go up [on the roof] because you knew that 18th Street [gang] did not congregate on the roof?” Merritt answered: “At night time some of us feared going out on the street because of the activity, so we asked our manager if we could let the dogs do their business on the roof, and he said yes.”
Defense witness Anthony Gutierrez testified that he lived in the same apartment building as Merritt, and that defendant Carlos Rodriguez lived across the street with Valerie Sanchez (the murder victim) and someone nicknamed “Cuba.” Shortly before the shooting, while defendant and Gutierrez were walking home, Sanchez met them and asked for a cigarette. As Gutierrez was handing her a cigarette, a bullet struck his hand. He then saw someone shooting at defendant and him from outside a small car. To protect themselves, Gutierrez and defendant dropped to the ground beside a parked *16car. After the shooting, Gutierrez stayed briefly at the apartment of Talal Al-Alusi, a friend, and then walked to another friend’s car half a block away. The friend drove Gutierrez to a street comer where he met some other friends. When Gutierrez lost consciousness as a result of the injury to his hand, Gutierrez was taken to a hospital and released at 5:30 that morning. The next day, October 12, 1995, Gutierrez did not leave his apartment during the day; he had no contact with Merritt and did not see defendant assault Merritt.
Defense witness Talal Al-Alusi testified that defendant, Gutierrez, and Sanchez were walking towards him just before the shooting on October 11, 1995.
Defense investigator Douglas Urschel testified that he had been on the roof of the apartment building on May 2, 1996. He stated that the roof was clean, that there was no evidence of recent cleaning, and that there was no evidence that dogs had been on the roof.
Defense witness Tom Savich testified that he lived on the third floor of the apartment building. In the early morning hours of October 11, 1995, after hearing gunshots and moaning, Savich looked out the window and saw a woman lying on the sidewalk and two men leaning against a car. He also saw a man leaning out of the passenger window of a car, but he could not distinguish faces on the street because he was looking down from a third floor window.
The defense attempted to call as a witness “Sally,” who with her husband was a co-manager of the apartment building. The prosecution objected. Saying “my bailiff has a train to catch,” the trial court expressed its desire to address the matter “real quickly.” Outside the jury’s presence, defense counsel then made this offer of proof of Sally’s anticipated testimony:
“Let me see if I can find the statement. Basically, [defense investigator] Urschel took a statement from her. Here it is. No one was permitted to walk their dogs on the roof. She stated she knew of no one who had walked their dogs on the roof.
“She knew Tommy Lee Merritt and had never given Mr. Merritt permission to walk his dog on the roof nor had any information that he ever had.
“Now, she works with her husband, I guess, as managers of the building, and I believe Mr. Merritt had testified that he had asked the manager’s approval to walk his dog on the roof. She said she would deny any permission to any tenant to walk their dogs on the roof.
*17“Now, I advised the court and counsel there were some other things she also said. One thing I may not have mentioned. It just came to light concerning that is that when tenants routinely move in the building, when tenants move into the building, they always ask to go up on the roof and use it for sunbathing, and she denies anybody the right to use the roof in any way whatsoever.
“So I think it’s probative to show that impeaches Mr. Merritt. She also said that the one-man cleaning crew does not have, as part of his duties, doing anything up on the roof because no one is supposed to be on the roof.
“[The Court] That’s it?
“[Defense counsel] She may have said—I don’t recall—I will ask her tomorrow whether she had been on the roof. I think she said she might have been there and never noticed any dog excrement or urine stains.
“I specifically remember asking her, if she’d go up there specifically when non-compliant people may be drinking beer. Her husband went up to get the people down and to collect the beer bottles. So I know she goes up on the roof proximity, and the right to whether Merritt had, there’s no corroboration he had it.”
The trial court ruled that the defense could not present co-manager Sally’s proposed testimony to the jury, stating the defense was trying to impeach Merritt on a collateral matter. The court also characterized Sally’s proposed testimony as cumulative. A majority of the Court of Appeal reversed defendant’s conviction for the murder of Valerie Sanchez, holding that the trial court’s exclusion of the testimony was prejudicial error. The court also reversed defendant’s conviction for assault with a firearm because of insufficient evidence that the gun was loaded at the time of the assault.
This court granted the Attorney General’s petition for review. Our February 25, 1998, order granting review limited the issues before this court to: “(1) whether the trial court erroneously excluded defense evidence offered for impeachment on a collateral matter, and (2) whether there was sufficient evidence that the gun was loaded to support the conviction for assault with a firearm.” The majority does not address whether the trial court erred in excluding the defense evidence as attempted impeachment on a collateral matter. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 10.)1 Instead, the majority reverses the Court of Appeal’s judgment as to the murder conviction on the ground that the *18defense evidence was irrelevant. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 10.) I disagree. The evidence was relevant and its exclusion was prejudicial error.
II.
Unless excluded by statute, all relevant evidence is admissible. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (d); Evid. Code, § 351.) “ ‘Relevant evidence’ means evidence, including evidence relevant to the credibility of a witness or hearsay declarant, having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” (Evid. Code, § 210.) Relevant evidence includes not only evidence of the ultimate facts in dispute but also evidence of intermediate facts, that is, facts from which the ultimate fact may reasonably be inferred. (Cal. Law Revision Com. com., 29B pt. 1 West’s Ann. Evid. Code, supra, foll. § 210 at p. 23; 1 Jefferson, Cal. Evidence Benchbook (3d ed. 1997) § 21.16, p. 298; id., § 21.19, p. 298; see People v. Hill (1992) 3 Cal.4th 959, 987-988 [13 Cal.Rptr.2d 475, 839 P.2d 984].) “An inference is a deduction of fact *19that may logically and reasonably be drawn from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise established in the action.” (Evid. Code, § 600, subd. (b).)
Here, the identity of the killer is the ultimate fact. Whether Merritt was on the roof of the five-story apartment building and could perceive and identify the killer on the street below is an intermediate fact. (Evid. Code, § 780, subds. (c), (d).) The trial court excluded proposed defense evidence by co-manager Sally that at the time of the shooting (1) Merritt and other tenants were not allowed on the roof, (2) Sally had never given Merritt permission to walk his dog on the roof and to her knowledge Merritt had never walked his dog on the roof, and (3) there was no evidence of dogs having been on the roof. Through this testimony the defense sought to impeach Merritt and show that he was not on the roof when he said he was. The proposed testimony was relevant because it had a “tendency in reason” to disprove a disputed material fact: Merritt’s claim that he was walking his dog on the roof at the time of the shooting. The proposed testimony called into question the veracity of Merritt’s claim that “some of us,” that is, a number of the building’s tenants, had permission to walk dogs on the roof of the apartment building.
The majority criticizes defense counsel’s offer of proof as uncertain and vague based on counsel’s statement that Sally “might” testify that she herself had been on the roof to determine the presence of dogs on the roof. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 10.) Although this part of the offer did not precisely describe Sally’s anticipated testimony in this regard, the offer of proof was sufficient. Defense counsel’s offer of proof “made known to the court” (Evid. Code, § 354, subd. (a)) co-manager Sally’s proposed testimony, suggesting that she had inspected the roof periodically. As I noted earlier, the trial court was in a hurry and wanted to have the matter addressed “real quickly.” To criticize defense counsel for using the word “might” under these circumstances is, I think, unfair.
I find unconvincing the majority’s primary reason for concluding that co-manager Sally’s testimony was irrelevant. Merritt testified that Merritt and others had asked “our manager” for permission to walk their dogs on the roof “and he said yes.” (Italics added.) Seizing on the word “he,” the majority reasons that because the proposed defense testimony was to come from co-manager Sally, it does not “directly meet” the issue of whether her husband and co-manager had granted tenants permission to walk dogs on the roof. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 10.)
Presumably a husband and wife who co-manage an apartment building where they also reside discuss decisions regarding management of the *20property. It could thus be reasonably inferred that Sally and her husband did not announce and enforce flatly contradictory policies as to use of the apartment building’s roof. Thus, if the jury had been allowed to hear co-manager Sally’s testimony, it would have been presented with a conflict between the inference that Merritt had permission to be on the roof and therefore was on the roof at the time of the shooting and the inference that Merritt did not have permission to be on the roof and therefore was not on the roof. It is for the jury as the trier of fact, not the court, to resolve any conflict between inferences. (Juchert v. California Water Service Co. (1940) 16 Cal.2d 500, 503 [106 P.2d 886]; Hoch v. Allied-Signal, Inc. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 48, 59 [29 Cal.Rptr.2d 615]; see 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 370, pp. 420-422.) Here, by upholding the trial court’s exclusion of the proposed defense testimony, the majority has taken it upon itself to resolve a factual conflict, thus usurping the jury’s function as trier of fact. (Evid. Code, § 312, subd. (b) [jury determines credibility of witnesses]; Hoch v. Allied-Signal, Inc., supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at p. 59 [resolution of conflicting inferences and weighing of opposing evidence is for jury].)
The majority criticizes defendant’s offer of proof for failing to show that co-manager Sally had personal knowledge that Merritt was not on the roof of the apartment building at the time of the shooting. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 10.) Evidence Code section 702 requires a witness to have personal knowledge of the subject matter of the witness’s testimony. Here, Sally’s proposed testimony was that tenants are not permitted to walk their dogs on the roof of the apartment building, to her knowledge no one had done so, and she had never given a tenant permission to use the roof for any purpose. These were matters within her personal knowledge.
Because of my conclusion that the exclusion of the proposed defense testimony was error, I now turn to the question of whether the error was prejudicial to defendant.
m.
When, as here, a trial court commits an evidentiary error, “the applicable standard of prejudice is that for state law error, as set forth in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [299 P.2d 243] (error harmless if it does not appear reasonably probable verdict was affected).” (People v. Cudjo (1993) 6 Cal.4th 585, 611 [25 Cal.Rptr.2d 390, 863 P.2d 635].) In my view, the trial court’s exclusion of the proposed defense testimony here was error that affected the verdict, requiring reversal of the judgment.
*21The evidence presented to the jury was sharply conflicting. The testimony of defense witnesses Gutierrez and Al-Alusi that defendant was not in a car but was walking on the street at the time of the shooting tends to contradict the testimony of Merritt, the prosecution’s star witness. Merritt claimed that while walking his dog on the roof of a five-story apartment building at 1:30 in the morning and looking at the street below, he saw defendant lean out of a moving car; Merritt recognized defendant’s mustache, goatee, and even such detail as a mark on his left cheek, yet he could not see a gun in defendant’s hand. Compare this with the testimony of defense witness Tom Savich, who witnessed the same event as Merritt at the same time as Merritt from the same building as Merritt, but from the third floor instead of the roof above the fifth floor. Savich said that he saw a car with a passenger leaning out of the window, but that because he was looking down from the third floor to the street he could not make out the features of people on the street.
The record discloses that Merritt’s testimony troubled the jury, which deliberated for two and one-half days before reaching a verdict. Jury deliberations began at 10:55 a.m. on Friday, May 10, 1996. At 12:00 noon, the jury asked for a copy of Merritt’s testimony. When the jury, which apparently was not given a copy of Merritt’s testimony, reconvened to deliberate on the following Monday morning, it asked that Merritt’s testimony be read to it. After the reading, the jury continued deliberations. It did not reach a verdict until the next day.
Given the sharp conflict in the evidence, the length of the jury’s deliberations, and its concern with prosecution witness Merritt’s testimony, it is reasonably probable that the trial court’s error affected the verdict. If the jury had heard co-manager Sally’s testimony, there is a reasonable probability that it would not have credited Merritt’s testimony that he was on the roof of the five-story apartment building when the 1:30 a.m. shooting occurred. If the jury had not believed that Merritt was on the roof of the building during the shooting, it probably would not have believed his testimony that he saw defendant shoot Valerie Sanchez on the street.
In turn, it is reasonably probable that had the jury heard co-manager Sally’s testimony, it would also have disbelieved Merritt’s testimony about defendant’s assault on him. The trial court correctly instructed the jury that a witness willfully false in a material part of his testimony is to be distrusted in others, and that it could reject the whole testimony of such a witness. (CALJIC No. 2.21.2; People v. Allison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 879, 895 [258 Cal.Rptr. 208, 771 P.2d 1294].) If the jury had rejected Merritt’s testimony about the murder, it is reasonably probable that it would not have credited Merritt’s testimony about defendant’s assault on him.
*22I would affirm the Court of Appeal’s judgment reversing defendant’s conviction for murder and assault with a firearm.
Mosk, J., concurred.

In my view, the trial court did err in excluding the proposed testimony as impeachment on a collateral matter. The collateral-matter limitation on attacking the credibility of witnesses *18applies when an examiner elicits “otherwise irrelevant testimony on cross-examination merely for the purpose of contradicting it.” (People v. Mayfield (1997) 14 Cal.4th 668, 748 [60 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 928 P.2d 485]; accord, People v. Lavergne (1971) 4 Cal.3d 735, 744 [94 Cal.Rptr. 405, 484 P.2d 77]; see also Cal. Law Revision Com. com., 29B pt. 2 West’s Ann. Evid. Code (1995 ed.) foll. § 780 at pp. 586-587 [“The so-called ‘collateral matter’ limitation on attacking the credibility of a witness excludes evidence relevant to credibility unless the evidence is independently relevant to the issue being tried.”].) For instance, if defense counsel had asked Merritt about his dog’s age, or whether the dog was licensed, the trial court could properly have excluded evidence offered to show that Merritt had falsely answered these questions, because they concerned facts having no conceivable relevance to the charges being tried. But, as I explain in the text, whether tenants in general and Merritt in particular had permission to walk their dogs on the roof, and customarily did so, were questions that were independently relevant to the issue being tried. For if Merritt testified falsely on these points, a jury could reasonably infer that he was not in fact on the roof at the time of the shooting and had testified falsely about his identification of defendant. Nor could the trial court properly exclude co-manager Sally’s proposed testimony as being merely cumulative. Whether the trial court relied on this basis in excluding the evidence is unclear. At one point, the reporter’s transcript has the trial court stating: “I think the evidence is cumulative. Had the evidence been basically he walks the dog on the street, not on the roof, so it’s cumulative as to that evidence.” The statement is so unintelligible that one can only conclude that the court misspoke or the reporter did not transcribe the court’s words accurately. In any event, none of Sally’s proposed testimony was cumulative because no witness testified to the facts asserted in the offer of proof. No witness testified that tenants were not permitted to walk dogs on the roof, that Sally had not given Merritt permission to be on the roof, or that she had no knowledge that Merritt had ever walked his dog on the roof. Although Sally’s proposed testimony that she never noticed any dog excrement or urine stains on the roof overlapped to some extent defense investigator Urschel’s testimony that there was no evidence that dogs had been on the roof, the proposed testimony was not merely cumulative even on that one point because Urschel’s inspection of the roof was limited to a single occasion more than six months after the shooting, whereas defense counsel’s offer of proof suggested that co-manager Sally had inspected the roof periodically and might well testify to observations around the time of the shooting.