Opinion ID: 1179588
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The prosecutor's question concerning a letter to Shoopman.

Text: Shoopman testified to receiving a letter from defendant on or about September 14, 1979. On cross-examination the prosecutor asked him, Isn't it a fact, Mr. Shoopman, that he [defendant] wrote you about the rape and killing of a girl in the mountains before September 14? Shoopman denied receiving such a letter, and the prosecutor did not mention the matter further. (33) Defendant invokes the rule that it is improper to ask questions which clearly suggested the existence of facts which would have been harmful to defendant, in the absence of a good faith belief by the prosecutor that the questions would be answered in the affirmative, or with a belief on his part that the facts could be proved, and a purpose to prove them, if their existence should be denied. ( People v. Lo Cigno (1961) 193 Cal. App.2d 360, 388 [14 Cal. Rptr. 354], quoted in People v. Perez (1962) 58 Cal.2d 229, 241 [23 Cal. Rptr. 569, 373 P.2d 617, 3 A.L.R.3d 946].) The problem in applying this rule is that it makes the issue turn on the prosecutor's good faith, and the record will rarely contain evidence bearing on that matter. In the present case, there is evidence that Shoopman received letters from defendant which he destroyed, but we have no information as to the contents of those letters, or what the prosecutor knew of their contents. Neither can we determine whether the prosecutor, at the time he asked the question, intended to prove the fact at issue. One might infer lack of intent from the fact that the prosecutor did not introduce evidence to prove the content of the destroyed letter, but one can readily imagine that by the time he could offer rebuttal evidence the prosecutor might have concluded that such additional evidence was unnecessary. On the record before us, misconduct has not been demonstrated.