Opinion ID: 2632907
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Prosecutor's Alleged Failure to Control Witness

Text: Detective Robert Bell testified for the prosecution that he had spoken to defendant while investigating the murders in this case. The prosecutor asked Bell, And what did you tell him? Bell replied: I explained to him that we were doing the investigation regarding the thrill killer, and that his name had come up as a result of being spoken to by officers the other evening, and asked if he'd be willing to come down to the sheriffs department to talk to me. (Italics added.) The defense made no objection. During the next recess, the trial court told the prosecutor, prior to reconvening, will you have a word with regard to Detective Bell in terms of the stipulation that we have in terms of not referencing this matter as the thrill killer case? The prosecutor agreed to do so. The stipulation referred to by the trial court does not appear in the record. Defendant contends the trial court's comments show that the parties had stipulated that counsel and the witnesses would not mention that this was the matter referred to in the news media as the Thrill Killer case. Based on this alleged stipulation, defendant asserts the prosecutor committed misconduct by asking the question that elicited Detective Bell's reference to the Thrill Killer. We assume for the sake of argument that the parties entered into such a stipulation. Nonetheless, defendant has forfeited the right to raise this claim because he did not object to the prosecutor's question at trial. ( People v. Michaels (2002) 28 Cal.4th 486, 528, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 285, 49 P.3d 1032.) Even if defendant had preserved the issue, we would reject his contention. The prosecutor's question was innocuous, and there is no evidence that he asked it with the intent to elicit a reference to the Thrill Killer. Defendant argues it does not matter whether the prosecutor intended to elicit the reference when he asked the question, pointing out that misconduct may occur even when the prosecutor acts in good faith. We disagree. True, if the prosecutor had asked a question that was likely to elicit a reference to the Thrill Killer, the question would have been misconduct even if the prosecutor did not intend to elicit such a reference. (See People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 823, fn. 1, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 656, 952 P.2d 673; People v. Bolton (1979) 23 Cal.3d 208, 213-214, 152 Cal.Rptr. 141, 589 P.2d 396.) But here the prosecutor's question was proper because it was not inherently likely to elicit a reference to the Thrill Killer and there was no evidence that the prosecutor asked it with the intent to elicit such a reference. Defendant claims the prosecutor committed misconduct by failing to admonish Detective Bell, before he testified, not to refer to defendant as the Thrill Killer before he testified. This contention would lack merit even if defendant had not forfeited it by failing to object at trial. A prosecutor has the duty to guard against statements by his witnesses containing inadmissible evidence. [Citations.] If the prosecutor believes a witness may give an inadmissible answer during his examination, he must warn the witness to refrain from making such a statement. ( People v. Warren (1988) 45 Cal.3d 471, 481-482, 247 Cal.Rptr. 172, 754 P.2d 218.) Here, the record does not show that the prosecutor had reason to believe that Detective Bell might refer to the Thrill Killer in his testimony, nor does it show what the prosecutor said to Bell on the subject before Bell testified. Thus, there is no evidence that the prosecutor violated his duty to guard against impermissible references during Bell's testimony.