Opinion ID: 1133414
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Prosecutor's insinuation of possible subornation of perjury

Text: Defendant contends the prosecutor committed misconduct by insinuating in his cross-examination of defense witnesses that members of the defense team had encouraged false testimony. As one example, defendant points to the questioning of Ken Robson, the boyfriend of defendant's mother. On direct examination Robson testified that defendant, upon learning of baby Amanda's death, had said that someone else was with him when Amanda got injured, muttering the names Dennis and Terry. In cross-examining Robson, the prosecutor asked whether defense investigator Paul Ford had told Robson that it was imperative that the trial evidence put somebody else in [defendant's] house when Amanda was injured. Because defendant did not object and request that the trial court admonish the jury to disregard the prosecutor's questions, and because this was not a situation in which admonitions would have been futile, defendant may not now complain that the questions were prosecutorial misconduct. ( People v. Berryman, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 1072, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 867, 864 P.2d 40; People v. Price, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 447, 3 Cal. Rptr.2d 106, 821 P.2d 610.) Moreover, defendant's claim lacks merit. A prosecutor's suggestion or insinuation that defense counsel fabricated the defense is misconduct only when there is no evidence to support that claim. ( People v. Mitcham (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1027, 1081-1082, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 230, 824 P.2d 1277, italics omitted.) Here, there was evidence that members of the defense team may have suborned perjury. When Dennis Morgan was called as defense witness, he testified on cross-examination that defendant and the defense investigator had solicited him to give false testimony and that defense counsel offered him a bribe.