People v. Garth CA4/2

DISCUSSION

1. Defendant’s statement to the social worker

Defendant contends the trial court erred in admitting the statement he made to the

social worker because the statement was irrelevant, highly inflammatory, and prejudicial.

We disagree.

a. Procedural background

Before trial, the prosecutor filed a motion to admit defendant’s statement to the

social worker, arguing that the statement was relevant and admissible under Evidence

Code section 1101, subdivision (b), as circumstantial evidence of intent. The motion

stated that defendant had told the social worker that he “would ‘hurt the officer who

3 arrested him,’ ” because this was how the statement was worded in the police report.

After reading the motion, the trial court informed counsel that it was inclined to admit the

statement because, “when a person, on the same day, only a few hours apart, acting under

what would appear to be a similar frustrated, angry frame of mind, threatens to kill one

group of people if they notify the police, something that they’re perfectly free to do and

have every right to do, and then a short time later makes an indirect threat to a [social

worker] for performing [her]…