Opinion ID: 2280736
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Officer's Cross-examination of Appellant

Text: The People are not required to provide a prosecutor for every infraction trial. If the court's conduct in the absence of a prosecutor `is fair and properly limited in scope,' the defendant in such a trial does not suffer denial of due process of law. ( People v. Marcroft (1992) 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 544, 6 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 4, quoting People v. Carlucci (1979) 23 Cal.3d 249, 255, 152 Cal.Rptr. 439, 590 P.2d 15.) Evidence Code section 773, which governs who may examine a witness, states: (a) A witness examined by one party may be cross-examined upon any matter within the scope of the direct examination by each other party to the action in such order as the court directs. [¶] (b) The cross-examination of a witness by any party whose interest is not adverse to the party calling him is subject to the same rules that are applicable to the direct examination. Evidence Code section 775 further states: The court, on its own motion or on the motion of any party, may call witnesses and interrogate them the same as if they had been produced by a party to the action, and the parties may object to the questions asked and the evidence adduced the same as if such witnesses were called and examined by an adverse party. Such witnesses may be cross-examined by all parties to the action in such order as the court directs. Apparently, because there was no prosecutor present at this trial, the court allowed the officer to cross-examine appellant. This was error because the officer was not a party within the meaning of Evidence Code section 773 or section 775. The party was the People of the State of California, and the officer was simply their witness. There is no provision in the Evidence Code which allows a witness to conduct a cross-examination of another witness. Therefore, appellant's objection to the officer's cross-examination of him should have been sustained. Violations of rights under state law are subject to review under the standard of People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 299 P.2d 243. Thus, in reviewing the trial court's error in the applying the California Evidence Code, the test is whether it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error. ( Id. at p. 836, 299 P.2d 243; See People v. Rodriguez (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1005, 1012, 232 Cal.Rptr. 132, 728 P.2d 202.) Here, appellant has failed to show that a different result would have been reached if the officer had not cross-examined him. However, even if his answers to the questions were stricken, there was ample evidence he was the driver of the vehicle. Therefore, even though it was error for the trial court to allow the officer to cross-examine appellant, the error was harmless because appellant has not shown that he was prejudiced by the error.