California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Tuilaepa, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 382, 4 Cal.4th 569, 842 P.2d 1142 (Cal. 1992):
Defendant challenges testimony by all three witnesses recounting his in-custody statements. He relies on the general notion that abusive and even threatening language does not violate a penal statute and is inadmissible under factor (b). (See People v. Wright, supra, 52 Cal.3d 367, 425-426, 276 Cal.Rptr. 731, 802 P.2d 221, and cases cited.) Defendant also argues that evidence of other circumstances surrounding the outbursts was not independently admissible, e.g., thrown liquid, torn pants, unrelated "match bomb" incidents, and defendant's maximum security status.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.