Opinion ID: 844218
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Cross-examination of Ernesto Avila

Text: Defendant contends the prosecutor committed misconduct by questioning Avila regarding the meaning of Smokey, defendant's nickname. The prosecutor, after eliciting from Avila testimony that in street parlance, to smoke someone meant to kill him or her, asked whether defendant had earned his nickname by smoking people. Avila denied that this was the meaning of defendant's nickname. Even assuming that defense counsel's objection to the initial question concerning defendant's nickname (which was overruled) was sufficient to preserve defendant's appellate claim, it is without merit. Contrary to defendant's assertion, the shared root of the two words at issue provided a good faith basis for the prosecutor to ask whether defendant's nickname derived from his having smoked someone. The circumstance that Avila testified this was not the meaning of defendant's nickname did not make the prosecutor's questions improper. Defendant contends the prosecutor improperly questioned Avila concerning certain subjects with the intention to emphasize group violence to incite the jurors against [defendant] and the defense witnesses. Even to the extent defendant made adequate objections to the prosecutor's assertedly improper conduct, he failed to request that the trial court admonish the jury not to draw any such adverse inference from the testimony. In light of the circumstance that the trial court sustained several of defendant's objections to the questions at issue, we cannot say that a request for such an admonition would have been futile, nor can we conclude that a properly framed admonition would have been ineffective in preventing the asserted prejudice defendant raises on appeal. Accordingly, even to the extent the claim was preserved, there was no prejudicial misconduct. Defendant also urges that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct because he continued to ask questions regarding certain subjects after the trial court had sustained defendant's objections to earlier questions, thereby assertedly disregarding the court's rulings. [18] Even assuming defendant adequately raised objections to the prosecutor's questions, defendant at no time asked the trial court to admonish the jury regarding the prosecutor's having ignored the court's rulings, and we discern no reason to believe that such an admonition could not have corrected any impropriety that might have been occurring. These claims, too, are forfeited. Moreover, we observe that it is not necessarily improper for an attorney to attempt to overcome prior sustained objections by asking a witness similar questions that have been reframed in an effort to meet the trial court's ruling. Defendant contends the prosecutor committed misconduct by questioning Avila concerning his knowledge of defendant's having been incarcerated, and Avila's own history of being in jail and prison. Defendant asserts that by eliciting this testimony, the prosecutor sought to impeach Avila in an impermissible manner, and improperly painted Avila as a dangerous person whose testimony should be disbelieved for that reason, and further smeared [defendant] by association. Defendant forfeited this contention by failing to object in the trial court to any of the assertedly improper questions on that basis. Defendant contends the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by misleading the jury when questioning Avila concerning his testimony that Deputy Blair subjected him to so-called flashlight therapy, that is, that Deputy Blair hit Avila with a flashlight for being disrespectful. At an earlier hearing outside the presence of the jury at which the trial court considered whether to permit defendant to present evidence concerning the civil lawsuit against the sheriff's department and the Vikings, Avila testified that Deputy Blair inflicted flashlight therapy on him a few times. When questioning Avila at the hearing, the prosecutor's questions concerning flashlight therapy and Avila's subsequent answers were framed as though there had been only one incident of flashlight therapy by Deputy Blair. [19] Defendant did not object, or attempt to clarify Avila's testimony on the issue in redirect examination. During his trial testimony, Avila stated on direct examination that he had been subjected to flashlight therapy by members of the Vikings three or four times, and specifically by Deputy Blair on more than one occasion. On cross-examination, the prosecutor confronted Avila with what the prosecutor perceived as an inconsistency between Avila's cross-examination testimony at the hearing, which, in response to the prosecutor's questions, seemed to imply that there was only one incident involving Deputy Blair, and Avila's trial testimony that there had been more than one incident. [20] Defense counsel objected that the prosecutor was misstating the evidence, and that the prosecutor's question concerning why Avila might have changed his testimony was argumentative. The trial court overruled each objection. The prosecutor then elicited from Avila that although he had testified that Deputy Blair gave him flashlight therapy in June or July of 1994, Avila, in fact, had been in jail and prison at that time, and Deputy Blair had not assaulted him while he was incarcerated. Avila ultimately stated that he was not exactly sure when he had received flashlight therapy from Deputy Blair. Defendant did not revisit this subject during Avila's redirect examination. Defendant contends the prosecutor blatantly misstated the facts and referred to facts that were beyond the trial evidence in challenging Avila's credibility concerning the subject of flashlight therapy. Assuming defendant's objections at trial preserved this claim, we conclude it is without merit. Avila's testimony at the hearing outside the presence of the jury was ambiguous concerning how many incidents involved Deputy Blairalthough he initially testified to a few incidents, he later appeared to adopt the prosecutor's characterization that there was only one incident. Thereafter, he testified before the jury that there was more than one incident. The prosecutor was permitted to explore the apparent inconsistency in this testimony. Indeed, defendant was free to attempt to clarify Avila's testimony in redirect examination, but he chose not to do so. (See People v. Valencia (2008) 43 Cal.4th 268, 283 [74 Cal.Rptr.3d 605, 180 P.3d 351] ( Valencia ).) Defendant next contends the prosecutor committed misconduct in his questioning of Avila regarding whether he told his parole agent that on the day Deputy Blair was shot some Young Crowd members had spoken of killing the next deputy that came down the street. After Avila stated that he did not make such a statement, the prosecutor asked Avila whether his parole agent would be lying if she testified to the contrary. Defendant did not object to the prosecutor's would she be lying question, and therefore forfeited his appellate claim of misconduct. Defendant contends the prosecutor's questions regarding whether Avila's father lied to the police concerning where Avila was during the shooting also constituted misconduct, because the prosecutor smuggled in hearsay evidence about Avila's father covering for him and denied defendant the opportunity to confront the evidence against him. [21] Defendant forfeited this claim by failing to object at trial. Defendant next asserts that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by asking Avila a series of questions essentially concerning whether, in his experience as a gang member, if the police were harassing one member of the gang, other gang members who were nearby and were armed would respond to help the person being harassed. Avila testified that some would do so and others, including Avila, would not. Defendant urges that Avila's answers introduced irrelevant evidence that was intended to make [defendant] look that much worse, suggesting that [defendant] shot simply to kill a deputy. Defendant did not object on that basis at trial, and therefore forfeited this claim. Defendant also contends the prosecutor committed misconduct by mischaracterizing Avila's testimony concerning where defendant was the last time Avila saw him before the shooting started. [22] As defendant observes, Avila did not agree with the characterization of the facts as stated in the prosecutor's questions, and the trial court, in response to defense counsel's objections, explicitly advised the prosecutor (and the jury) that the prosecutor had misstated the evidence. Accordingly, even to the extent we could be convinced the prosecutor was purposefully misstating the testimony and was not merely mistaken or properly attempting to clarify the witness's testimony, any such misconduct could not have been prejudicial. Finally, defendant contends the prosecutor's cross-examination of Avila in general was inappropriately argumentative and inflammatory, noting that at certain points the trial court sustained objections to argumentative questions, or advised the prosecutor not to interrupt the testimony, and to keep [his] voice down. It is clear from the record that the cross-examination of Avila was contentious. Even to the extent we might characterize the prosecutor as having overreacted to the difficulties he faced in effectively questioning Avila, however, it is clear that the trial court monitored the situation and intervened when it felt it necessary to do so. Defendant has not demonstrated that the trial court's actions were insufficient to ameliorate any possible prejudice arising from the prosecutor's behavior.