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

Heading: Prosecutor's questions implying facts

Text: During the prosecutor's cross-examination of defendant, the prosecutor asked the following question: Well, isn't it true that after you raped and sodomized this child you tried to wipe her off and clean her up? Later in the cross-examination; this exchange took place: [Prosecutor] Mr. Foltz: Isn't it true that everything you're saying here for this jury is just the things as you want them to be? [Defense Counsel] Mr. Bernstein: Objection. Argumentative. The Court: Sustained. Mr. Foltz: And isn't it true that you made up Dennis Morgan and the Dennis Morgan story as recently as October 1991? Mr. Bernstein: Objection. Argumentative. The Court: Sustained. Mr. Foltz: Isn't it true that you decided that you had no defense unless you made up Dennis Morgan? Mr. Bernstein: Objection. Argumentative. The Court: Sustained. Mr. Foltz: Did you make up Dennis Morgan? Defendant: No. Defendant now contends that these and similar questions that the prosecutor asked defendant and other witnesses constituted prosecutorial misconduct because the questions implied facts harmful to the defense. We have held that a prosecutor commits misconduct by asking a witness a question that implies a fact harmful to a defendant unless the prosecutor has reasonable grounds to anticipate an answer confirming the implied fact or is prepared to prove the fact by other means. ( People v. Price, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 481, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 106, 821 P.2d 610.) For a prosecutor's question implying facts harmful to the defendant to come within this form of misconduct, however, the question must put before the jury information that falls outside the evidence and that, but for the improper question, the jury would not have otherwise heard. (See People v. Warren (1988) 45 Cal.3d 471, 481, 247 Cal.Rptr. 172, 754 P.2d 218 [describing the gist of the misconduct as implying in the question facts [the prosecutor] could not prove].) Moreover, if the prosecutor is not asked to justify the question, a reviewing court is rarely able to determine whether this form of misconduct has occurred. ( People v. Price, supra, at p. 481, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 106, 821 P.2d 610.) In both instances set forth above, the prosecutor's questions were based on evidence already before the jury or inferences fairly drawn from that evidence. Therefore, there was no impropriety. We have examined the additional instances cited by defendant as improper questions by the prosecutor implying facts harmful to the defense. We conclude that they too were fairly derived from evidence already presented at trial, or that because of defendant's failure to request that the prosecutor make an offer of proof regarding the fact implied in the question, it is not possible to conclude from the record that, if asked, the prosecutor would not have been able to put forward evidence establishing the harmful implied fact.