Opinion ID: 2590700
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Cross-examination of Sonya Cravens

Text: During its cross-examination of Sonya Cravens, the prosecution asked her, Did you not inquire of your attorney whether or not you had to speak to [Detective Collette and his partner]? Defense counsel objected that he was not Cravens's attorney: I represent Mr. Wilson. The prosecution apologized and rephrased its question. On appeal, defendant claims that the prosecution's question improperly hinted that Cravens was part and parcel of the defense team. We disagree. The prosecution's brief misstatement, which was quickly withdrawn, did not improperly suggest Cravens was part of the defense team, much less constitute a deceptive or reprehensible method used to persuade the jury. (See People v. Monterroso (2004) 34 Cal.4th 743, 785, 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 101 P.3d 956.) Defendant also claims that the prosecution attempted to intimidate Cravens by affirmatively exploiting her fears of reprisal from Wayne through personal questions on her address and the cars she had, and by asking her sharp, argumentative, and even threatening questions. We disagree. First, defendant failed to object that the questions were argumentative; therefore, he has forfeited this claim on appeal. ( People v. Farnam, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 167, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 106, 47 P.3d 988.) Second, the prosecution's cross-examination was proper. Cravens testified that Anderson told her that defendant did not murder Swader, but that he himself had pulled the trigger. However, she came forward with this information almost 10 years later because she said the defense investigator reassured her that Anderson would not find out that I was the one who gave the information, and I was tired of hiding it. In light of her decade-long silence, the prosecution was entitled to ask her pointed questions on her credibility and her change of heart. The prosecution's question whether she knew that this was a public trial and that anybody could attend was not intended to frighten Cravens, but sought to undermine her assertion that she only came forward now because she would not have to worry about Anderson coming after her. Also, the prosecution's questions on her current home address and the year, make, and license plate numbers of her cars were intended to contradict her testimony that she did not know that Detective Collette had knocked on her door in February 1994. The trial court overruled defendant's relevance objection after the prosecution explained it would tie the information to Detective Collette's visit to Cravens's home.