People v. Carter CA3

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues the trial court erred in admitting evidence that D.H. and Kayla T. had been threatened because such evidence was inadmissible and prejudicial. With respect to the threat D.H. saw on Facebook, defendant argues the evidence was not properly authenticated. A. The Evidence of Witness Threats was Admissible Defendant argues the evidence of threats to the witnesses was inadmissible because it was irrelevant and because it was hearsay. Defendant’s argument that such evidence is not relevant unless the witnesses’ testimony was affected by the threat, or the testimony favored the defendant, is contrary

2 to the Supreme Court’s pronouncements regarding the relevance of such evidence. Most recently, in People v. Chism (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1266, the court explained that such evidence is relevant to witness credibility. “ ‘Evidence that a witness is afraid to testify or fears retaliation for testifying is relevant to the credibility of that witness and is therefore admissible.’ (People v. Burgener (2003) 29 Cal.4th 833, 869 (Burgener); see generally Evid. Code, § 780.) Evidence of any explanation of the basis for such fear is likewise relevant to the jury’s…