Opinion ID: 2633286
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Questions About Defendant's Truthfulness

Text: During his first interview with the police, defendant denied that he had ever been in Powell's house. During the second interview, defendant initially maintained that he had never been in Powell's house but eventually admitted he had previously lied to the police and had entered Powell's house after she was killed. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked defendant several times whether he twitched, blinked, blushed, or otherwise indicated to the officer who interviewed him that he was lying. Defendant generally responded that he did not know or remember. The trial court overruled counsel's objections that the prosecutor's questions were argumentative. On appeal, defendant claims the prosecutor's questions constituted misconduct because they were argumentative and served only to inflame the jury. We disagree. An argumentative question is designed to engage a witness in argument rather than elicit facts within the witness's knowledge. ( People v. Mayfield (1997) 14 Cal.4th 668, 755, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 928 P.2d 485.) Defendant admitted he had lied to the police during the first interview. As the People point out, the questions were appropriate because they related to distinct mannerisms or gestures defendant may have displayed when he lied. They were, in essence, designed to elicit facts within defendant's knowledge that related to the assessment of his credibility. ( People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 23, 864 P.2d 103 [it is the exclusive province of the trier of fact to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts on which that determination depends].) No misconduct occurred. In addition, defendant claims that the trial court acted improperly in clarifying a question during this examination. Defendant had indicated he did not understand what the prosecutor was asking. The court described the cross-examination as stalled and clarified the prosecutor is asking you if you are aware of anything that you do when you lie, such as blush or blink your eyes or swallow hard or be unable to look the other person in the eye. Defendant responded, I don't know. Absent an objection, defendant has forfeited this claim on appeal. Nonetheless, it is without merit. While it is ordinarily the better practice for the trial court to let counsel develop the case, a trial court properly may undertake the examination of witnesses ... when it appears that relevant and material testimony will not be elicited by counsel. ( People v. Rigney (1961) 55 Cal.2d 236, 243, 10 Cal. Rptr. 625, 359 P.2d 23.)