Opinion ID: 1375029
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Sustaining Objection on Relevance Grounds to Cross-examination

Text: The prosecution called Fowler's mother, Mary Ella Fowler, to identify her son and Chavez from photographs, and also to explain that the two concocted a story for their respective parents that they were going to spend the night at the other's house to avoid detection as going to the park. The direct examination contained 10 questions. Cross-examination was equally brief. Defendant elicited from Mrs. Fowler that Fowler was precocious: He had a lot of older friends. Defendant wanted to know how much older those friends were. The prosecutor objected that the answer would be irrelevant. The court sustained the objection. (40) Defendant contends that ending this line of questioning infringed on rights he asserts to cross-examine witnesses under the confrontation clause of the federal Constitution's Sixth Amendment. He argues that [i]f counsel had been permitted to question Mrs. Fowler, and she had revealed that most of Scott's older friends were sixteen, then doubt would be cast on the proposition that Fowler spoke with [him]. Furthermore, probing into this area [might] have revealed other persons who[] Fowler may have met on the night of the murders. The claim lacks merit. On this record, the trial court's ruling, even if erroneous, could not have prejudiced defendant because any favorable inference he sought to draw from the proposed impeachment was purely speculative. ( People v. Davis, supra, 11 Cal.4th 137a.) In any event, we discern no constitutional violation. The confrontation clause allows `trial judges ... wide latitude ... to impose reasonable limits on ... cross-examination based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness' safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant.' ( Delaware v. Van Arsdall [(1986) 475 U.S. 673,] 679 [89 L.Ed.2d 674, 683, 106 S.Ct. 1431] [speaking specifically of cross-examination on bias, but without limitation thereto].) The court here did no more than it was permitted. ( People v. Clair, supra, 2 Cal.4th 629, 656, fn. 3.) It stayed well within the bounds of the wide latitude the Constitution affords it.