Opinion ID: 2613958
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Vargas's Recognition of Garcia at Prior Lineup

Text: Immediately after Detective Williams testified that Vargas identified Garcia at his preliminary hearing, the prosecutor asked him: The date of the preliminary hearing where you had the discussion with Mrs. Vargas, did she indicate to you that she had in fact recognized Mr. Garcia on the stage? When defense counsel objected to the question as leading and hearsay, the prosecutor responded: It's a prior inconsistent statement. After the trial court overruled the objection, Williams answered: Yes. She stated that she had identified him on each of the occasions; however, she was in fear of safety for herself and for her family and that's why she failed to specifically point him out in those situations. (10) Defendant contends that the trial court erred in overruling his objection because Vargas's purported statement to the detective was consistent, not inconsistent, with her testimony. Defendant claims that the erroneous admission of the statement prejudiced him by making Vargas's testimony appear more credible and persuasive than it actually was. This claim is unavailing. Even if the challenged evidence was not admissible as a prior inconsistent statement, any error in its admission was clearly harmless. First, the statement was merely cumulative of Vargas's trial testimony. Second, as discussed previously, Vargas was consistent and unequivocal in her recognition of defendant. Given the record, it is not reasonably probable that admission of the statement affected the verdict. ( People v. Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d at p. 836.) Defendant next claims for the first time on appeal that the erroneous admission of Vargas's extrajudicial statement abridged his right of confrontation. The record, however, discloses that defendant's counsel did, in fact, cross-examine Vargas earlier about Garcia's live lineup, although he did not dwell on the matter. Moreover, as noted previously, Vargas was apparently available for additional cross-examination had defense counsel so requested. Under these circumstances, defendant's right of confrontation was not abridged. ( California v. Green, supra, 399 U.S. at pp. 153-164 [26 L.Ed.2d at pp. 494-495]; People v. Johnson, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 1220; People v. Chavez, supra, 26 Cal.3d at pp. 349-361.) [23]