Opinion ID: 2594480
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 24

Heading: Inquiry about defendant's incarceration

Text: Defendant's live-in girlfriend, Maria Valles, testified that defendant was acting paranoid and nervous during the weeks prior to the murders and later stated on cross-examination that she found out defendant was using cocaine during that period. In order to impeach her testimony, the prosecutor tried to elicit that defendant was incarcerated from December 3, 1989, to December 5, 1989the days immediately preceding the murdersand therefore could not have been doing cocaine at least on those days. Defendant objected, arguing that the risk of undue prejudice outweighed the probative value of the evidence (Evid.Code, § 352), and the court ruled that the prosecutor could only elicit that Valles had not seen defendant during those two days. Therefore, Valles did not testify to defendant's incarceration immediately preceding the murders. Defendant argues this line of questioning constituted misconduct, but defense counsel, in his own questioning of Valles, had readily acknowledged that defendant was in jail a lot from the drugs, and Valles had already admitted that defendant was incarcerated in 1986 and 1987. Therefore, testimony about defendant's incarceration from December 3, 1989, to December 5, 1989, would not significantly have altered the picture the jury had of defendant. On the other hand, the prosecutor was entitled to cross-examine Valles about the factual basis for her assertion that defendant was using cocaine during the days and weeks leading up to the murders. Moreover, on account of the court's ruling, the jury did not hear of defendant's incarceration during the days immediately before the murders. Accordingly, we find no misconduct and no possibility of prejudice to defendant.