Opinion ID: 1258767
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Ineffective Counsel Claim Stipulating to Admission of Linda G.'s Guilt Phase Testimony

Text: (5) Defendant next contends that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance when he stipulated that Linda G. was unavailable to testify (caused by mental instability), and that her guilt phase testimony could be read in its entirety to the jury at the penalty retrial. Linda had testified concerning defendant's 1978 molestation and oral copulation offenses previously described herein. According to defendant, his counsel should have objected to this procedure on the basis that defendant's confrontation and cross-examination rights would be thereby impaired: Although defense counsel had an opportunity to cross-examine Linda at the guilt phase, that opportunity was assertedly legally inadequate in light of the different purposes (i.e., determining guilt versus appropriate penalty) for which the testimony was offered during the two proceedings. (See Evid. Code, § 1291, subd. (a)(2) [opposing party had the right and opportunity to cross-examine the declarant with an interest and motive similar to that which he has at the hearing]; People v. Brock (1985) 38 Cal.3d 180, 189 [211 Cal. Rptr. 122, 695 P.2d 209].) We do not think the foregoing differences in purpose are so pronounced as to support defendant's argument. Although the offenses against Linda were admissible for different purposes, trial counsel had a similar motive to attack the credibility of Linda's testimony, whether it bore directly on the guilt issue or only on penalty, because the penalty jury would be entitled to consider the offenses committed against her only if proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, there is no reason to believe that counsel's penalty phase cross-examination of Linda would have been substantially different from his guilt phase examination. Moreover, counsel had reasonable, tactical reasons for stipulating to Linda's unavailability: As he expressed on the record, he believed Linda's recorded testimony would have less impact on the jury than if presented live by her, especially if she was unable to control her emotions during counsel's questioning. (Her current unstable mental condition was apparently caused by defendant's assault on her.) We conclude that counsel was not incompetent in failing to raise a confrontation objection to the reading of Linda's guilt phase testimony.