 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Mayfield1/2/1997
ere facing west when you shot Sergeant Wolfley?" Defense counsel objected that the question assumed facts not in evidence. The trial court sustained the objection on the ground that the question was argumentative because it assumed a fact--that defendant had shot Sergeant Wolfley--that defendant had expressly denied.
In each instance, the trial court sustained the defense objection or the prosecutor voluntarily rephrased the question. In each instance, defendant made no request for an admonition. We do not find misconduct or prejudice based on these isolated and relatively insignificant incidents.
Another incident deserves mention here. After defendant testified he did not have a knife while he was inside the Haverstick residence, the prosecutor asked: "Lost your knife by the station, didn't you?" Defense counsel objected but stated no ground. The trial court overruled the objection. Defendant then testified that he never had a knife at the station. As we have previously explained, evidence concerning the knife was admissible. (See pt. IV.F., ante.) For the same reason, we conclude that the knife was a legitimate subject for cross-examination.
2. Eliciting Testimony Solely to Contradict
Defendant asserts that the prosecutor repeatedly violated the rule against eliciting otherwise irrelevant testimony on cross-examination merely for the purpose of contradicting it ( People v. Lavergne, (supra) , 4 Cal. 3d 735, 744) by questioning defendant about the height, shape, construction, and appearance of a wall located behind the service station.
We find no misconduct. Once a defendant takes the stand and testifies to the circumstances of the charged offenses, the prosecutor on cross-examination is permitted "to explore the identical subject matter in much greater detail." ( People v. Green (1979) 95 Cal. App. 3d 991, 1007 [157 Cal. Rptr. 520]; accord, People v. Cooper (1991) 53 Cal. 3d 771, 822 [281 Cal. Rptr. 90, 809 P.2d 865] [stating that "the permissible scope of cross-examination is 'very wide' "].) On direct examination, defendant testified that he had looked over the wall, had seen some officers, and had heard a voice say, "If you see the mother fucker, kill him." It was part of the defense theory of the case that hearing this statement caused defendant to fear for his life and served in some fashion to justify or excuse his subsequent conduct at the Haverstick residence. The prosecutor could properly challenge the veracity of this testimony by showing that it was inconsistent with the physical characteristics of the wall.
3. Argumentative and Irrelevant Questions
Defendant asserts that the prosecutor repeatedly violated the rule against argumentative questions--that is, questions designed to engage the witness in an argument rather than to elicit facts within the witness's knowledge. (See People v. White (1954) 43 Cal. 2d 740, 747 [278 P.2d 9].) Having reviewed each claimed instance of argumentative question, we observe that the trial court sustained most of the defense objections on this ground (see People v. Pinholster (1992) 1 Cal. 4th 865, 943 [4 Cal. Rptr. 2d 765, 824 P.2d 571] [generally a party is not prejudiced by a question to which an objection has been sustained]), and we conclude that the trial court did not permit the prosecutor to engage defendant in an argument but instead kept the cross-examination properly focused on relevant facts.
A witness may not be examined on matters that are irrelevant to the issues in the case. (Evid. Code, § 350; People v. Gloria (1975) 47 Cal. App. 3d 1, 4 [120 Cal. Rptr. 534].) Defendant cites four instances in which the defense objected on grounds of relevance. In thre
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|