Opinion ID: 1196421
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 34

Heading: Converting Mitigating Evidence Into Aggravating Evidence

Text: When cross-examining Dr. Hamilton, the prosecutor asked her to explain what she meant by atypical impulse control. After explaining it describes a person who is impulsively and uncontrollably aggressive, the prosecutor asked whether It could happen right now? She replied, Possibly. He continued: Mr. Wharton might go off the handle and fly over Mr. Duval and pop Detective Tonello here? She admitted it was possible. (45) Defendant claims that by this questioning, the prosecutor improperly attempted to convert mitigating evidence into aggravating evidence. He waived this issue, however, by failing to object. ( Lewis, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 282.) In any case, the prosecutor was allowed to explore implications raised by defendant on direct questioning; having raised the issue of atypical impulse control, defendant could not insist on immunity from cross-examination on the subject. (See People v. Gates (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1168, 1211 [240 Cal. Rptr. 666, 743 P.2d 301].)