What is the test for admissible evidence in a murder case?

However, the cases on which he relies do not require expert testimony in order to find the evidence admissible. For example, in People v. Farnam (2002) 28 Cal.4th 107 (Farnam), the court stated that, "[e]vidence that defendant possessed a knife two months after the . . . crimes, coupled with the evidence that the perpetrator of the . . . crimes used a sharp instrument, consistent with defendant's knife, to slit a screen door and sever two telephone cords at the [victim's] residence, tended to establish that defendant was the perpetrator." (Id. at p. 156.) The court did not hold that expert testimony was a prerequisite to the weapon's admission. The reason an expert did testify in Farnam was to establish that the knife "could have been the tool used to cut the telephone cords and the screen door" at the victim's residence. (Ibid.)

Similarly, in People v. Mills (2010) 48 Cal.4th 158 (Mills), the court stated that, "[b]ecause defendant was accused of killing the victim by cutting her throat and shortly after the crime was found in possession of several cutting devices, any one of which could have been the murder weapon, the trial court acted within its discretion in finding the evidence to be relevant. [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 197.) Although an expert testified that knives found by the police could have been used to cause the fatal wounds, the court did not hold that expert testimony was required for the weapon to be admissible. (See also People v. Cox (2003) 30 Cal.4th 916, 957, overruled in part on other grounds by People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390 [concluding that guns were admissible because they were "relevant either as possible murder weapons, or as weapons that could have been used to coerce the victims into

Page 16

defendant's car or otherwise subdue them," not because of expert testimony].)