Opinion ID: 2588259
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Limitation on impeachment of Balestri

Text: At the preliminary hearing, Balestri testified that after defendant tied her up in the bedroom she heard, but could not see, him go to a desk on the other side of the room in which Smith kept cocaine. Balestri then heard sounds of the cocaine being cut and of sniffing. Shortly thereafter defendant kicked Balestri in the stomach and demanded to know where the money was kept. She told him it was on a clipboard on a night table. She then testified that she did not see defendant take either the cocaine or the money. At trial, Balestri testified that she saw defendant remove a wad of bills from the clipboard. When defense counsel sought to impeach Balestri with this apparent inconsistency, the trial court asked her whether she had seen defendant take it [the clipboard with the money] from the night-stand, and she said no. But she testified she saw defendant in possession of the roll of bills from the clipboard. When defense counsel tried to get Balestri to identify where in her preliminary hearing testimony she described defendant removing money from the clipboard, the court sustained the prosecution's objection that there was no inconsistency. The trial court characterized the question as improper, explaining that Balestri had not been asked at the preliminary hearing if she saw defendant holding the money, only if she saw defendant take the money from the night-stand. Defendant contends this was an inconsistency that would probably have tipped the scale to a finding of untrue for the [robbery-murder] special circumstance. Moreover, he argues that the trial court committed misconduct both by suggesting defense counsel was asking an improper question and by then stating there was no inconsistency. We disagree. Even assuming the trial court's evidentiary ruling was erroneous, defendant was not prejudiced. Whether or not Balestri actually saw defendant with Smith's money, there was no inconsistency between her preliminary hearing testimony and her trial testimony that after she heard sounds consistent with cocaine use, defendant kicked her in the stomach and asked where the money was. Moreover, these events occurred after Smith was dead and after defendant had shot and beaten Balestri. Thus there is not a reasonable probability that the trial court's ruling affected the jury's decision that defendant had formed the intent to rob before or at the time he shot Smith.