Opinion ID: 2544552
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Officer Bumanglag's improper reference to search warrant.

Text: Trial commenced on July 26, 2000. During direct examination the prosecution asked Officer Bumanglag [n]ow, were you assigned to execute a search warrant on December 4, 1998? After receiving an affirmative answer, the prosecutor asked where the warrant was executed. No further reference by the prosecution was made regarding the warrants. During cross-examination, defense counsel questioned Officer Bumanglag about the search warrant. Officer Bumanglag testified that Diaz was the subject of a search warrant. Defense counsel then asked, [N]ow, if I were to tell you that the warrant itself made no reference to Alicia Diaz, would that be correct? The prosecution objected and asked that the document be marked for identification. After viewing the document, the prosecutor objected because defense counsel was not using the complete warrant. [9] Defense counsel argued that the purpose of introducing that part of the warrant was to impeach Officer Bumanglag by demonstrating that Diaz's name was not on that warrant. The court permitted defense counsel to submit the warrant over the prosecution's objection. Questioning again proceeded with the following exchange: DEFENSE COUNSEL: Officer Bumanglag, again, on December 4, 1998, you saw the warrant, you read the warrant, right? BUMANGLAG: Yes. DEFENSE COUNSEL: And if I were to tell you that there is no mention of an Alicia Diaz, would that be correct? . . . . BUMANGLAG: Not on that search warrant. DEFENSE COUNSEL: Your Honor, I object. May I approach? Your Honor, I would move for a mistrial. There was a clear instruction by this Court that there is to be no mention of the second warrant until I open the door. I have not opened the door. THE COURT: [Defense Counsel] you're on dangerous ground. The trial court ruled that the answer came from the witness and that it was not unreasonable, given the fact that there were two warrants. The trial court subsequently denied the motion for mistrial. Defense counsel continued questioning Officer Bumanglag, eliciting testimony that the warrant for Fil-Am Video store was not addressed to Diaz.