What is the test for admissibility of evidence supporting a claim that the parole office was acting as an agent of law enforcement?

The People point out the evidence was not offered to challenge the investigator's credibility or to prove the parole office was acting as an agent of law enforcement so its admissibility cannot be urged on those grounds on appeal. They are correct. Since the People were not placed on notice of the necessity to present evidence refuting that theory, the theory may not be raised for the first time on appeal. (People v. Auer (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1664, 1670, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 823.) However, since

Page 42