Opinion ID: 2582262
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Yvonne's Welfare History

Text: Based on Yvonne's welfare records, defendant asserted that she had committed perjury. She received welfare while working and living with defendant, but falsely represented under oath to the contrary. Although Yvonne had never been charged with such an offense, he sought to confront her with this evidence. The court excluded the inquiry to the extent defendant offered it as general impeachment. It indicated, however, that the evidence might be admissible if defendant could show that when talking to police Yvonne might have been concerned about being prosecuted for welfare fraud. It offered to hold an in limine hearing, but none was requested. Evidence Code section 352 empowers courts to prevent criminal trials from degenerating into nitpicking wars of attrition over collateral credibility issues. ( People v. Wheeler (1992) 4 Cal.4th 284, 296, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 418, 841 P.2d 938 ( Wheeler ).) Yvonne did not come before the court as a model of rectitude. The jury learned, among other things, that she lied to her employer and to the police. Coming home to find her husband and son washing off blood in the family tub, she went to her place of employment to find a coworker's body being removed by the coroner. She returned to find cash and checks, apparently from the store, in her apartment. She did not report these facts to authorities. Instead she accompanied her mother, husband, and child on an excursion to purchase narcotics. While additional evidence of any welfare malfeasance may have been relevant, it is most unlikely to have cast Yvonne in a much more negative light. [I]mpeachment evidence other than felony convictions entails problems of proof, unfair surprise, and moral turpitude evaluation which felony convictions do not present. Hence, courts may and should consider with particular care whether the admission of such evidence might involve undue time, confusion, or prejudice which outweighs its probative value. ( Wheeler, supra, 4 Cal.4th at pp. 296-297, 14 Cal. Rptr.2d 418, 841 P.2d 938, fn. omitted.) The court acted within its discretion by refusing to permit defendant, in effect, to prosecute Yvonne for welfare fraud, particularly in the absence of any evidence directly connecting the alleged fraud with her testimony.