Opinion ID: 1133414
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cross-examining two defense witnesses

Text: Defendant contends that in cross-examining defense witnesses Gloria Carl and James Park, the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct that violated not only state law but also the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution. We disagree. Defense witness Gloria Carl was a cook who had befriended defendant at the juvenile hall where he was housed at various times throughout his early teenage years. In Carl's view, defendant got into trouble as a teenager because he wanted attention and because his home life lacked structure. On cross-examination, the prosecutor, without objection,. established that defendant's juvenile offenses included safecracking, entering a bank, and joyriding. The trial court sustained defense objections to several questions intended to establish that Carl knew that as time passed, defendant's crimes got more severe. The trial court also sustained a defense objection to the prosecutor's question whether in the years that defendant was in and out of juvenile hall, Carl considered him to be a sociopath. Defense witness James Park had been the assistant warden at San Quentin prison, and in various other capacities had been employed in the California prison system for 40 years. Based on a short discussion with defendant, defendant's prior record, and defendant's age, Park expressed the view that defendant would make a good adjustment within the confines of [a maximum security] prison. In response to defense counsel's question whether Park thought defendant would pose a danger to prison guards or other prisoners, Park answered: I cannot see that he would be a danger under any condition in the high security prison. On cross-examination, the prosecutor inquired whether Park made his evaluation of defendant's future dangerousness based on a smattering of information. The prosecutor also asked, If you are wrong and another victim results from it, do you suffer any loss ... do you get less money for your [consulting] work? The trial court sustained defense objections to both questions as argumentative. A prosecutor does not commit misconduct by challenging the credibility of a defense witness or the basis for the witness's good opinion of a defendant. `If the defense chooses to raise [a] subject, it cannot expect immunity from cross-examination on it' ( People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, 219, 279 Cal.Rptr. 720, 807 P.2d 949; People v. Gates, supra, 43 Cal.3d 1168, 1211, 240 Cal.Rptr. 666, 743 P.2d 301.) Furthermore, a prosecutor can properly explore on cross-examination the basis for an expert's prediction that a capital defendant will pose no future danger if sentenced to life without parole. ( People v. Morris, supra, at p. 219, 279 Cal.Rptr. 720, 807 P.2d 949.) Although here some of the prosecutor's questions were argumentative, we are satisfied that, under any standard of prejudice, the questioning did not affect the outcome of the penalty phase.