Opinion ID: 2613958
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Exclusion of Zavala's Opinion Testimony

Text: On cross-examination, defense counsel asked Zavala if he had previously told a defense investigator that you thought it looked like the attackers had come to the apartment to kill your brother? The trial court sustained the prosecutor's objection that the question called for speculation as to the intent of the attackers. (18) Defendant contends the trial court erred because the question called not for speculation, but for the witness's opinion as to what he personally perceived during the attack. Defendant claims the error was prejudicial because the evidence would have created a reasonable doubt on the special circumstance allegations and the underlying charges of attempted robbery and burglary by showing that defendant's purpose when he entered the apartment was strictly to kill Barragan. While not disputing the issue of error, the Attorney General argues that no possible prejudice could have resulted from the omission of the evidence. We agree that any perceived error was harmless. At trial Cynthia Ontiveros testified that she, Garcia and defendant planned to rob Zavala and Barragan. She provided details of their planning and of the events leading up to the attack. She also described what happened after the three fled the crime scene, providing particulars concerning defendant's injury, his disposal of the murder weapon, and the washing and return of defendant's car. Although Zavala may have thought it looked like the attackers had come to kill his brother, that would not have been necessarily inconsistent with Ontiveros's testimony and Zavala's other testimony indicating that the two attackers coordinated their efforts to gain access to the apartment, subdue the brothers and obtain whatever it was. Additionally, if admitted, Zavala's testimony arguably would have bolstered the theory that Garcia and defendant conspired to rob the brothers and to leave no witnesses. Given all the evidence in the record, as well as the fact that there was no evidence that defendant previously knew or even heard of Barragan, it is highly unlikely that the jury would have believed the motive was other than robbery. [31]