Opinion ID: 2581010
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Asking assertedly improper questions

Text: Defendant claims that in three respects, the prosecutor committed misconduct by asking improper questions. When the prosecutor asked Terry Guillory whether any member of the district attorney's office, or of any law enforcement agency, had threatened him in order to make him testify, Guillory responded, No, not by the District Attorney's Office or any police agency. The prosecutor then asked was  were there threats made to you by somebody?  to which Guillory responded, Yes, they were. The prosecutor asked who had made those threats, and Guillory responded: [Defendant's] friends. They've been threatening me in jail for the last three days. I got a note underneath my door. At that point, defense counsel objected that he had not received any information concerning such threats, and in response the prosecutor stated that he would withdraw the question  to which defense counsel simply stated, Thank you. Defendant now asserts that withdrawal was ineffective to cure the harm. Second, defendant claims that the prosecutor committed misconduct by asking Detective Kimura why he attended Gloria Pillow's funeral. In response, the detective gave a partial answer: There was a possibility  and a concern by the family of Ms. Pillow . Defense counsel interrupted before the witness could finish, and the prosecutor immediately said he would reask the question: Did you see [defendant] at Gloria Pillow's funeral? The detective responded that he did not. Finally, defendant reasserts the essence of a subclaim addressed and rejected above (see ante, pt. II.L), that the prosecutor improperly elicited testimony from Guillory concerning his telephone conversation, on the morning after the killings, with Donna Guthrie  testimony that implied Guthrie's fear of defendant following the killings. Defense counsel did not object on misconduct grounds to the threats or Pillow family concern in the questions described above. Because a timely admonition would have cured any resulting harm, defendant cannot now complain of this asserted misconduct on appeal. ( Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d 1, 34, 164 Cal.Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468.) In any event, on the facts of this case, any misconduct that occurred would be harmless. We already have explained that, even assuming misconduct in the prosecutor's question that elicited Guillory's testimony implying that Donna Guthrie feared defendant after the killings, any such misconduct was nonprejudicial in light of the properly introduced evidence at trial. (See ante, pt. II.L.) We reach the same conclusion with respect to that same subclaim here, as well as with respect to the asserted misconduct concerning the prosecutor's follow-up question about threats made to Guillory while he was in jail and Detective Kimura's assertion that he attended the funeral because of concern by the family of Ms. Pillow . In light of the strong and independent evidence demonstrating that defendant was in fact guilty of the crimes charged, any assumed misconduct was nonprejudicial.