Opinion ID: 2387024
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cross-examination of defense experts

Text: Defendant contends that during the prosecution's cross-examination of Norman Morein and Michael Mantell, the prosecutor improperly elicited evidence of defendant's future dangerousness. He also contends the prosecutor denigrated Mantell. As explained below, these contentions find no support in the record. Norman Morein testified that, based upon his review of prison records related to defendant's incarceration during the years 1983 to 1993, in Morein's opinion defendant would adjust very well to prison. During redirect examination, defense counsel asked Morein whether a probation report prepared at the time a defendant is convicted and sentenced is important in determining the prisoner's classification within the prison. Morein responded, Only the offense is the important thing. The prosecutor began his recross-examination by pursuing this topic, asking Morein to identify the offenses for which defendant was sentenced to prison in 1983. Morein identified attempted murder and robbery, but was uncertain of the number of counts. The prosecutor then inquired whether the number of offenses was important in classifying a prisoner. The defense objected that the question was irrelevant to Morein's testimony. The objection was sustained. The prosecutor then asked Morein to confirm he was here giving an opinion [concerning] somebody's adjustment. Morein agreed. The prosecutor followed up by asking, And would you not agree with me that you need to look at the person's past in order to determine what type of risk they might be in the future? Morein responded, That's true. The prosecutor then asked whether Morein was aware when he was reviewing defendant's prison records that defendant had attempted to kill three police officers (referring to defendant's conduct during the police chase in 1982). Morein confirmed he was aware of that fact. The prosecutor then asked, How did that factor into your opinion in this case? Morein responded, It didn't. At this point, defense counsel objected that it's not relevant as to his opinion as to adjustment in prison. If it's classification, it's another question. The court overruled the objection, and Morein testified that the prison sentence rather than the nature of the crime was the factor that determined where a prisoner was assigned. (18) Defendant asserts the prosecutor improperly introduced evidence of future dangerousness during this exchange. (See People v. Avila (2006) 38 Cal.4th 491, 610 [43 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 133 P.3d 1076] [`[E]xpert testimony that a capital defendant will pose a danger in the future if his life is spared is inadmissible.' [Citation.] A prosecutor can, however, `properly explore on cross-examination the basis for an expert's prediction that a capital defendant will pose no future danger if sentenced to life without parole.'].) Defendant did not object that the prosecutor was seeking or eliciting evidence of future dangerousness, and therefore has forfeited this claim. The claim also fails on the merits, because the questions did not elicit testimony that defendant would pose a danger in the future. Defendant's challenge to the prosecutor's treatment of Mantell focuses upon questions concerning defendant's deteriorating performance during the time he served as a Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputy. During cross-examination, the prosecutor asked, There are a number of reports that you saw that were very critical of [defendant's] behavior that you talked about, true? The witness responded, That's correct. It came later. Not at [the] Firestone [Station], necessarily. The prosecutor then stated, My questionI don't want to stand and argue with you. Defendant then objected that [t]he question was so broad it was responsive. The court interjected, Hold on. I think we're doing very well. We just need to continue. The prosecutor then stated: If you can, doctor, can you listen to my question and we'll get to it all. [¶] Now, did you in fact see a number of documents which were critical of this man's performance as a [sheriff's deputy]? The witness answered, Yes, I did. The prosecutor then asked, Now, in the beginning when he was [assigned to] the jail and Firestone [Station] things appeared to be fine; is that correct? The witness responded, That's true. (19) Defendant asserts on appeal that the questions were argumentative, but he did not object on that basis below. Accordingly, this claim is forfeited. The claim also fails on the merits. An argumentative question is a speech to the jury masquerading as a question. The questioner is not seeking to elicit relevant testimony. ( People v. Chatman (2006) 38 Cal.4th 344, 384 [42 Cal.Rptr.3d 621, 133 P.3d 534].) In the exchange set forth above, the prosecutor's questions were directed toward obtaining confirmation of relevant facts, and were not a speech to the jury. The circumstance that the prosecutor confronted the witness, challenged the witness's responses, or attempted to control nonresponsive testimony does not render the prosecutor's questions argumentative. Other than citing the questions and responses set forth above, defendant merely notes that the trial court sustained his objections that other questions were argumentative. Finally, defendant's contention that the questions were argumentative seems to be made in support of his claim that the prosecutor denigrated defense experts and introduced evidence of future dangerousness, but defendant does not explain how the prosecutor's questions to Mantell support that claim. Absent an explanation, we need not consider this claim on appeal. (See Catlin, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 133; Barnett, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 1182.) This claim also fails on the merits, because the questions concerning defendant's performance as a sheriff's deputy, and counsel's efforts to focus Mantell's responses, did not denigrate the witness or elicit testimony concerning future dangerousness.