Opinion ID: 2575997
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Claims of prosecutorial misconduct relating to testimony concerning immunity

Text: Defendant accuses the prosecutor of misconduct in questioning Doreen Westbrook about her having been granted immunity. Defendant claims that the questions misled the jury, unfairly bolstered Westbrook's credibility by suggesting the trial court had given its imprimatur to the prosecution's decision to grant immunity, unfairly implicated defendant in the immunity process, and unfairly minimized the prosecution's role in granting Westbrook immunity. Because defendant did not object at trial to these questions, he has not preserved these claims for appeal. Moreover, as we will explain, the record does not support his allegations. During direct examination, the prosecutor elicited from Westbrook the statement that the issue of immunity did not come up until she testified at the preliminary hearing, when, in the words of the prosecutor, defense counsel  declared the Fifth Amendment. (Italics added.) Defendant claims the word declared inaccurately implied that the defense asserted Westbrook's Fifth Amendment right. We disagree. As the Attorney General notes, defense counsel did raise the issue of Westbrook's privilege against self-incrimination at the preliminary hearing. Although the prosecutor would have been more precise had he said that defense counsel raised the question of Westbrook's Fifth Amendment privilege, instead of saying that counsel declared that privilege, the prosecutor's description of what transpired at the preliminary hearing was not inaccurate. Likewise without merit is defendant's assertion that the prosecution unfairly bolstered Westbrook's credibility by suggesting that the court gave its imprimatur to the immunity. Westbrook responded yes to the prosecutor's question that the immunity was granted by [the prosecutor's] office with the approval of the Court, correct? There was no misconduct. The question merely informed the jury that Westbrook had received immunity. Here, as in People v. Freeman, supra, 8 Cal.4th at page 489, 34 Cal. Rptr.2d 558, 882 P.2d 249, [n]o reasonable juror would interpret the questions as implying that the judge, or anyone else, had vouched for her credibility.