Opinion ID: 2607459
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Handgun Testimony

Text: (22) Defendant challenges references by three prosecution witnesses to a handgun he possessed at the time of his arrest. We find no prejudicial error. At the end of cross-examination, defense counsel asked defendant's companion, Brenda, whether defendant had asked her to dispose of anything for him in this case. She replied that she removed a handgun from the house at his request and gave it to her sister, Latonya. The prosecution elicited testimony about the gun on three subsequent occasions. In response to questions posed at the start of redirect examination, Brenda revealed that defendant requested disposal of the gun the day of his arrest; that he intended to hide it from police; and that Latonya forwarded the gun to a Detective Costello. Latonya and Costello confirmed this chain of events at trial. Defendant timely moved outside the jury's presence to strike each witness's testimony about the gun. The court summarily denied the requests. Defendant argues here, as below, that the court erroneously denied his motion to strike Brenda's original reference to the gun on grounds it was unexpected, nonresponsive and irrelevant. He insists the gun was unrelated to the capital charges and simply encouraged the jury to speculate about defendant's participation in other criminal endeavors. No error occurred. Defense counsel's question about handling property in this case was not limited on its face to evidence ultimately introduced at trial, and logically encompassed Brenda's actions during the police investigation. Her answer was therefore responsive, and defendant had no right to strike it. (See generally Evid. Code, § 766; 1 Jefferson, Cal. Evidence Benchbook (2d ed. 1982) § 27.13, pp. 773-774.) Defendant is correct, however, that the gun had no bearing on defendant's guilt of the charged crimes, and that the prosecutor had no right to exploit its admission during subsequent examinations of Brenda and other witnesses. (See 1 Jefferson, supra, § 27.17, pp. 787-788.) The court erred in overruling defense objections at this stage. Nevertheless, prosecution evidence about the gun could not have affected the verdict. It simply reiterated testimony already admitted on defense cross-examination, and was not mentioned in closing argument. The jury could readily conclude the gun had no bearing on the capital crimes. Any unfavorable character inferences were marginal in light of other strong evidence that defendant sexually assaulted and murdered Kimele and Catherine.