Opinion ID: 1158890
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Misconduct Issue

Text: (6a) Rocha's final contention is that the district attorney committed prejudicial misconduct by asking him on cross-examination: Isn't it also a fact, Mr. Rocha, that you smoked a marijuana cigarette in back of the Capitol Bar ? The trial court sustained defense counsel's prompt objection, and Rocha did not answer. Rocha contends in effect that the district attorney acted in bad faith in asking the question. In a police report Mary Sanchez reportedly stated that she had seen Rocha smoking a marijuana cigarette earlier in the evening before he knifed Piceno. The prosecutor stated his purpose in asking the question was to impeach the defendant's credibility by demonstrating that he was under the influence of marijuana and therefore unable to clearly perceive and recall the events of the evening. (7) Evidence of consumption of narcotics is admissible for impeachment purposes if there is expert testimony substantiating the effects of such use. ( People v. Smith, 4 Cal. App.3d 403, 411-412 [84 Cal. Rptr. 412]; People v. Ortega, 2 Cal. App.3d 884, 900 [83 Cal. Rptr. 260]; People v. Buono, 191 Cal. App.2d 203 [12 Cal. Rptr. 604].) (6b) In his offer of proof the district attorney failed to produce the necessary expert testimony of the effect of marijuana on the cerebral processes in question. Nor was it established that it could be proved that the substance which Rocha smoked was marijuana or that he was under its influence at the time of the commission of the crime. The district attorney's failure in his offer of proof is not, however, conclusive evidence of bad faith on his part. His explanation of the reason for the question and his argument that the admissibility of evidence of intoxication caused by smoking marijuana should parallel the introduction of evidence of alcoholic intoxication (which requires no expert testimony) demonstrates a sincere attempt to impeach the witness. In any event, any potential prejudice caused by the question was cured by the court's admonition to the jury. The court said: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, just before you left the courtroom for the recess, a question was asked of the defendant as to whether or not he had been smoking marijuana that day.... There was an objection to this question, and the Court has made a ruling in the absence of the jury and sustained that objection that the witness shall not answer the question and you are to disregard the question, forget that it was even asked and do not conjecture as to what the answer may or may not have been. It must be presumed that the jurors acted in accordance with the instructions and disregarded the question. ( People v. Seiterle, 59 Cal.2d 703, 710 [31 Cal. Rptr. 67, 381 P.2d 947]; People v. Duncan, 53 Cal.2d 803, 818 [3 Cal. Rptr. 351, 350 P.2d 103]; People v. Cannedy, 270 Cal. App.2d 669, 678-679 [76 Cal. Rptr. 24].) The question which did not go to the issue of defendant's guilt or innocence of which there was substantial evidence was not so inflammatory that any prejudicial effect could not be overcome by the instructions. ( People v. Duncan, supra, 53 Cal.2d 803, 818; People v. Seiterle, supra, 59 Cal.2d 703, 710.) The judgment is affirmed.