Opinion ID: 2518032
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Use of Zamora's Prior Statement

Text: On direct examination, Sergio Zamora said the items grabbed from the glove box by defendant and thrown out of the car were [c]redit cards and I think a watch. Asked to describe the watch, Zamora replied that it was black. The prosecutor showed Zamora a Casio watch of the same model usually worn by Rose. Zamora could not identify the watch as similar because he saw only the wristband of the watch thrown by defendant. [9] On cross-examination, defendant denied throwing a watch out the window, and believed Zamora made up this information with prodding and pumping and suggestive questions. The prosecutor referred to a page from Zamora's statement to Detective Castillo and told defendant: I'm referring to the interview which took place on January 25th at 2:15 a.m. at Bakersfield jail, Mr. Zamora said, he's asked basically what had been thrown out of the car and he says, `and a watch.' And the detective says `Yes?' Does that sound like the detective told [Zamora] what's been thrown out? Defendant answered, No, it does not. Defendant did not object to the prosecutor's quotation of the transcript. In closing argument, defense counsel questioned Zamora's reliability about the watch, noting that Zamora testified I think a watch was thrown from the car. He asked the jury to consider Zamora's sobriety at the time of the observations and pointed out that no watch was recovered. In rebuttal, the prosecutor urged that defense counsel's representation of Zamora's testimony was utterly false. She then read to the jury the portion of Zamora's interview with Detective Castillo, which she used in her cross-examination of defendant. Defendant complains the prosecutor committed misconduct by improperly referring to facts not in evidence. He points out that while the transcript of Zamora's interview was used in cross-examination of defendant, Zamora was never questioned about the quoted portion's accuracy. Therefore, no foundation was laid for its admissibility. Respondent concedes that the quoted portion of the transcript was merely the statement of counsel. However, respondent correctly observes that defendant has forfeited his claim by failing to object and request that the jury be admonished. Further, the misconduct was not prejudicial. Defendant claims Zamora's equivocal trial testimony was the only evidence linking defendant to Rose's watch. The argument fails. While Zamora's initial trial statement I think a watch was equivocal, his additional testimony was not. He described the watch as black. He could not say the Casio he was shown in court was similar because he had just seen the bottom, or wristband. While defendant parses Zamora's testimony, the jury, considering all the answers in context, could find he was not equivocal about having seen defendant throw a watch. The prosecutor read from the transcript in an attempt to rebut defendant's claim that officers prompted Zamora. But the transcript exchange added nothing to the essence of Zamora's testimony that he saw defendant discard a watch from the car. Zamora, of course, was subject to cross-examination on this subject. We are satisfied that the prosecutor's reference to this extrajudicial statement was harmless under any standard.