Opinion ID: 1158185
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Improper Questioning of Witnesses

Text: (23) Defendant contends the prosecutor improperly elicited certain damaging information about defendant's background during cross-examination of two defense witnesses. In response to a defense motion, the trial court had forbidden the prosecutor to question defense witnesses about defendant's juvenile record. Nevertheless, during cross-examination of defendant's sister, Debra Burdine, the prosecutor elicited the fact that defendant had been in juvenile hall. Since defendant did not object to the question or ask for a curative admonition, the allegation of misconduct is not cognizable on appeal. ( People v. Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 34.) Moreover, although it is plainly misconduct to ask questions calling for inadmissible answers ( People v. Bell (1989) 49 Cal.3d 502, 532 [262 Cal. Rptr. 1, 778 P.2d 129]), we discern no possibility of prejudice resulting from one passing reference to defendant's juvenile record. The error, if any, could not have affected the verdict. ( People v. Bonin (1988) 46 Cal.3d 659, 690 [250 Cal. Rptr. 687, 758 P.2d 1217].) Defendant also contends the prosecutor improperly elicited certain information during cross-examination of defense witness Shelby Schaefer contrary to a court order excluding this evidence. The information in question included the fact that Schaefer had visited defendant in the hospital where he was recovering from a stabbing, that defendant had been expelled from a prison work-furlough program for drinking, and that defendant had quit welding school. Contrary to defendant's contention, the trial court did not grant counsel's motion to exclude the information, but simply reserved judgment until the witness's actual testimony. Defendant thereafter failed to specifically object to any of the prosecutor's questions. Accordingly, any claim of error is waived on appeal. ( People v. Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 34.) Moreover, the questions were plainly within the scope of the witness's direct testimony and relevant to her credibility. ( People v. Cooper, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 822.) Accordingly, we find no error. Lastly, defendant asserts that the prosecutor inflamed the jury by asking John Ritesman, a government witness, whether he and defendant had ever viewed a program entitled Blood Bath at Sundial Ranch. After a defense objection was sustained, the prosecutor asked Ritesman whether he had ever seen a show about two women being butchered. Although the relevance of the questions is not altogether clear, we discern no possibility of their inflaming a reasonable juror. The brutality of the crimes was self-evident; the questions added nothing to the case.