X hits on this document





45 / 115

The defense attempted to present, through the testimony of Pasadena Police Officer Eugene Gray, evidence that during the investigation of the robbery Koll had identified (from photographic arrays) three different individuals as the robbers, even though there were only two robbers.  The trial court sustained a prosecution objection to such evidence, finding it irrelevant and further finding that the consumption of time and the risk of confusion necessitated by receipt of the evidence outweighed any probative value it held.  (Evid. Code, §  352.)

We agree the evidence was excludable under Evidence Code section 352.  Evidence that Koll had made an erroneous identification of one of the robbers from a photographic array would have been only slightly probative on the issues in defendant’s murder trial.  While defendant’s knowledge of weaknesses in the robbery prosecutor’s case was relevant as tending to show lack of motive, the murder jury did receive such evidence in the form of testimony from Attorney Lara and defendant.  At most, Gray’s proposed testimony would have tended to corroborate that evidence.13  Even the knowledge of a weakness in Koll’s robbery identification did not, however, tend strongly to disprove motive, since defendant had a motive to kill Koll, who had identified him at the preliminary hearing, regardless of whether that identification could have been challenged at trial.  Possible corroboration of the existence of that flaw in the identification, then, bore only an attenuated and weak tendency to disprove motive.

At the same time, exploration of the details of Koll’s pretrial robbery identifications threatened a significant consumption of time and potential for confusion.  Indeed, the prosecutor and defense counsel differed, in discussion before the trial court, as to whether the evidence even showed that Koll had made

13 Defendant’s offer of proof did not indicate that the weakness in Koll’s pretrial identifications related specifically to his identification of defendant, rather than his codefendant in the robbery case, Phillips.

Document info
Document views485
Page views485
Page last viewedTue Jan 17 01:05:28 UTC 2017