Opinion ID: 1133414
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prosecutor's questions about Helene Perusse's change in testimony

Text: At trial, defendant's mother, Helene Perusse, testified during the prosecution's case-in-chief that defendant telephoned her on Friday, August 26, 1988, at her home near Sacramento and asked that she drive to the Antelope Valley in Southern California and pick him up. Perusse and her boyfriend Ken Robson did so. Perusse admitted that at defendant's preliminary hearing she had given false testimony that defendant had just turned up at her front door on Sunday, August 28, 1988. According to Perusse, the version of events she related at the preliminary hearing was at defendant's suggestion that she tell it `that way' so `there won't be any trouble for you guys.' After Perusse's testimony, the prosecutor called defendant's girlfriend, Virginia Mac-Nair, as a witness. He asked her if she had been present at a meeting with Perusse and defense investigator Don Ingwerson that took place after the preliminary hearing and before trial. Defense counsel Bernstein objected to the question, citing the attorney client privilege. (Evid.Code,  954.) At a bench conference outside the jury's presence, the prosecutor explained he wanted to ask MacNair if Mr. Ingwerson told Helene during the course of that discussion to change her testimony from what she had previously testified to in the preliminary hearing, adding I don't believe that subordination [sic] of perjury is ever privileged. The trial court overruled defendant's objection. Defense counsel next asked for an offer of proof by the prosecutor on what relevancy he has that there has been such perjury. He compared the situation to inquiring whether a witness had ever been convicted of a felony and proposed that the prosecutor ask MacNair the question outside the jury's presence. The prosecutor responded that Helene Perusse had testified that she had changed her story sometime after the preliminary hearing and after she had talked to [defense] counsel in this matter. The prosecutor added: Now, that doesn't suggest that it's counsel that in fact caused her to change that. But I think it opens it for inquiry as to who may have, and if there was a contact by Mr. Ingwerson at some time after the preliminary hearing and prior to her testimony here, then I think it's relevant. The trial court ruled there was sufficient basis to ask that question. The following colloquy then took place before the jury. Mr. Foltz: Now, with regard to the last question. At any time while you were present and Mr. Ingwerson was talking to Ms. Perusse in your presenceÔÇö Ms. MacNair: Uh-huh. Mr. Foltz: ÔÇödid he ever ask her or tell her to change her testimony from the preliminary hearing? Ms. MacNair: Um, let's see. I think he arrived at the house prior to me being there because I was at work so he was there before I arrived. So if they spoke I don't know what they spoke about. Mr. Foltz: I am only asking you what you overheard while you were present. Ms. MacNair: No, I don't remember hearing about that. Defendant argues the prosecutor committed misconduct in asking MacNair whether she had heard the defense investigator's asking or telling Perusse to change her testimony. A prosecutor is not guilty of misconduct when he questions a witness in accordance with the court's ruling. ( People v. Rich (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1036, 1088, 248 Cal. Rptr. 510, 755 P.2d 960.) That is what the prosecutor did here. Before the prosecutor's inquiry of MacNair, the trial court in a bench conference outside the jury's presence expressly allowed the prosecutor to conduct the questioning in issue.