Opinion ID: 2602047
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Cross-examination of Defendant's Wife

Text: During the prosecutor's cross-examination of defendant's wife, the prosecutor asked whether she was encouraging the relationship between defendant and his children because she thought it would help him and she answered, No, not true at all. The prosecutor then asked whether she had ever brought the children to court and she said that, while she had not, someone else had. The prosecutor asked Was the purpose of bringing your children here to court to give, at which point the court interjected that the prosecutor's question called for speculation because the witness had testified that she did not bring the children to court. The prosecutor continued cross-examining defendant's wife who testified that she was aware the children had been brought to court. The prosecutor then began, You relinquished the children to somebody, whereupon defense counsel objected and asked to approach the bench. Defense counsel argued the prosecutor was improperly insinuating that the children were brought to court to be spectacles to the jury which I think is improper and prejudicial and has very little probative value. The prosecutor countered that, If she allowed the children to be brought to court and knew that was the purpose it goes to her bias and goes to her willingness to use her kids for show. The prosecutor also pointed out that defense counsel had mentioned the children's presence in court in the opening statement. The trial court ruled that the prosecutor could ask whether defendant's wife allowed the children to be brought to court, but not whether they were brought by another person. The prosecutor continued his cross-examination, asking whether defendant's wife had allowed the children to be brought to court, to which she answered Yes. Defendant argues the trial court erred in admitting irrelevant testimony that was more prejudicial than probative. We disagree. The question was relevant to the witness's credibility. Defendant's wife had testified that she encouraged the contact between defendant and his children and that she wanted to stay married because she thought it would help defendant. Whether she also intended to help him by encouraging his relationship with his children or allowing them to be brought to court was relevant to her credibility. (Evid. Code, § 780, subd. (f).) We also disagree that the question and witness's response were more prejudicial than probative. There was no risk of prejudice since, even without the testimony, the jury could have inferred from the children's presence in court that their mother had allowed them to attend. The testimony, on the other hand, was probative of the witness's credibility. The trial court did not err.