California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Martinez, 106 Cal.App.3d 524, 165 Cal.Rptr. 160 (Cal. App. 1980):
2 People v. Allen (1976) 65 Cal.App.3d 426, 434-435, 135 Cal.Rptr. 276, cited by defendant is not applicable. There defendant told police that he had some very good "connections" which were superior to even those of the police; defendant told police that he would put the word out about the stolen property so that he would be informed if anyone came across it. The defendant then placed a phone call and told the listener about the theft, described the jewelry, and said that he wanted to be informed if the jewelry was sold. On appeal, the court held this statement irrelevant. The statement was exculpatory in character and had no tendency in reason to prove that defendant had taken the property. Further, the evidence was highly prejudical; it tended to prove that defendant associated with known thieves or receivers of stolen property. Such an inference violated Evidence Code sections 1101 and 1102 by suggesting that the jury deduce guilt from the fact of defendant's character.
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.