Opinion ID: 1356054
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Cross-examination Regarding Defendant's Statement

Text: When defense counsel cross-examined Walker, he asked her whether defendant had also told her he didn't kill anyone. She agreed that he did say that. The district attorney objected and requested a hearing outside the jury's presence. The court sustained the objection and directed the jury to disregard the last remark and answer of the witness.... A hearing ensued outside the jury's presence. At the hearing, Walker testified that defendant made the statement loud enough for Edwards and Osborne to hear as part of the same conversation. In light of this further testimony, the court ruled the statement admissible. (See Evid.Code, § 356 [Where part of [a] ... conversation ... is given in evidence by one party, the whole on the same subject may be inquired into by an adverse party....].) In front of the jury, defense counsel resumed questioning Walker about what defendant had said. She testified that defendant had told her he didn't do nothing loud enough for everyone to hear. The court did not specifically tell the jury that it could consider this testimony. Defendant argues the court prejudicially erred in not telling the jury it had changed its ruling and the jury could consider the testimony. We disagree. The court did not change its ruling. When the witness first testified about the statement, no one had laid a proper foundation for its admission. Hence, the court properly sustained the objection subject to a further hearing, which it promptly held. When the witness testified further, and it became apparent the statement was admissible under Evidence Code section 356, the court properly admitted it. Defense counsel then resumed questioning the witness in front of the jury. Without further objection, the witness recounted the statement in her own words and said that defendant told her he didn't do nothing. Although the court had told the jury to disregard the earlier testimony, the jury heard nothing to prevent it from considering this testimony. No reason appears to believe the jury understood anything other than that it should not consider the earlier, but could consider the later, testimony. If defense counsel had thought the jury might have misunderstood the situation to defendant's detriment, they could easily have asked for an admonition to clarify any ambiguity. They did not, thus making the issue not cognizable on appeal. ( People v. Terry (1970) 2 Cal.3d 362, 398, 85 Cal.Rptr. 409, 466 P.2d 961.)