Opinion ID: 1127405
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Cross-examination of Robin Sanchez

Text: (29) As previously noted, defendant's wife, Robin Sanchez, testified in mitigation that defendant was a nice, trustworthy person who baby-sat her children. On cross-examination of the witness, Ryals asked her whether she was aware of the fact that [defendant has] been violent since he's been in jail? Sanchez replied, no. Defense counsel objected to the question and the trial court admonished the jury to disregard it. Thereafter, Ryals told the court that she had one more rebuttal witness whose testimony would be very, very, short, and the trial was continued a day in order to allow her to locate the witness. When the court reconvened, it granted defendant's request for an offer of proof with regard to the rebuttal witness, in response to which the prosecutor withdrew her proposed presentation of the witness. Defendant claims that the prosecutor deliberately used her cross-examination to place an insupportable insinuation that defendant was violent while in custody without proof of the alleged conduct in violation of People v. Bell, supra, 49 Cal.3d 502, 532 [counsel's deliberate asking of questions calling for inadmissible answers is misconduct].) We find no error. Defendant's wife was cross-examined by the prosecutor in response to her testimony that defendant was a nice and trustworthy person who babysat her children. It is well established that the prosecution may inquire of a defense ... witness whether he [or she] has heard of acts or conduct by the defendant inconsistent with the witness's testimony so long as the People have a good faith belief that the acts or conduct about which they wish to inquire actually took place. ( People v. Siripongs (1988) 45 Cal.3d 548, 578 [247 Cal. Rptr. 729, 754 P.2d 1306].) ( People v. Sandoval (1992) 4 Cal.4th 155, 188-189 [14 Cal. Rptr.2d 342, 841 P.2d 862].) In addition, the court sustained defendant's objection to the testimony, admonishing the jury to disregard it. The jury was also instructed: As to any question to which an objection was sustained, you must not guess as to what the answer might have been or as to the reason for that objection. [¶] You must never assume to be true any insinuation suggested by a question which was put to a witness. [¶] A question is not evidence and may be considered only as it supplies meaning to the answer which follows it. And you must not consider for any purpose any offer of evidence that was rejected or any evidence that was stricken out by the court. [¶] Such matter is to be treated as though you have never heard it. Given the fact that three first degree murder and two prior assault convictions were properly before the jury, any improper information the jury may have received regarding defendant's propensity for violence in jail could not have affected the jury's verdict. (See Montiel, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 930.) Under these circumstances, there is no reasonable possibility that the jury would have reached a more favorable verdict in the absence of the alleged misconduct. (See People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 448-449 [250 Cal. Rptr. 604, 758 P.2d 1135]; see also Chapman v. California (1968) 386 U.S. 18 [17 L.Ed.2d 705, 87 S.Ct. 824].)