Opinion ID: 2545831
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Cross-examination of Deputy District Attorney Lawrence Barnes

Text: To show that defendant had a history of confessing to murders he had not committed, the defense called Contra Costa County Deputy District Attorney Lawrence Barnes. He testified that in 1986 and 1987, he had prosecuted one Larry Leroy Brownson for the October 1984 murder of Roger Gardner. Defendant (who in 1986 and 1987 was in custody awaiting trial in this case) came forward at the time of Brownson's bail hearing and confessed to killing Gardner. At Brownson's trial, defendant testified for the defense consistent with that confession. Barnes had not believed defendant's confession and, testifying in this case as an expert witness, gave his reasons: Defendant's description of the Gardner killing differed in key respects from the physical evidence, and defendant had much to gain from taking the rap for Brownson who, as a Hell's Angel and high-level member of the Aryan Brotherhood prison gang, could make life easier for defendant in the California prison system. When the prosecutor cross-examined Barnes, he asked, among other things, about Barnes's cross-examination of defendant in the Brownson case. With no objection by defense counsel, this exchange took place: Prosecutor: And then you asked [defendant] if since October of 1984 [the time of the Gardner killing] had he committed any other crimes? Barnes: Did I ask that question? Prosecutor: And he said numerous[?] Barnes: Correct. Prosecutor: And you asked him if he had committed any other homicides[?] Barnes: I did. Prosecutor: His response? Barnes: He responded that he had. Defendant now contends that [t]here was no justification ... for allowing the jury to hear that [defendant] claimed to have committed numerous crimes after October 1984, including one or more homicides. He asserts that in eliciting that information, which defendant characterizes as propensity evidence, the prosecutor committed misconduct rendering defendant's capital trial fundamentally unfair and the death verdict unreliable. He further accuses his trial counsel of incompetence for not objecting to the prosecutor's questions. We reject these contentions. A claim of prosecutorial misconduct is generally reviewable on appeal only if the defense makes a timely objection at trial and asks the trial court to admonish the jury to disregard the prosecutor's question. ( People v. Earp, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 858, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 857, 978 P.2d 15; People v. Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 447, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 106, 821 P.2d 610.) `[Otherwise, the point is reviewable only if an admonition would not have cured the harm.' ( People v. Earp, supra, at p. 858, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 857, 978 P.2d 15.) Here, any harm could have been cured by an admonition; thus the claim in question is not preserved for appeal. In any event, defendant suffered no possible prejudice from this testimony. The jury already knew from the prosecution's case that defendant had confessed to one homicide committed after October 1984, namely the August 1985 killing of Weber, and that he had committed other crimes after 1984, namely the Weber killing and possession by a felon of a concealable firearm. Moreover, the defense in this case was that defendant habitually confessed to crimes he had not committed. The evidence the prosecutor elicited was not inconsistent with that defense. For this reason, we also reject defendant's contention that his trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the prosecutor's line of questioning.