Opinion ID: 2639585
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Alleged Exclusion of a Prior Statement of a Defense Witness

Text: During the redirect examination of the defense alibi witness Maria Velasco, defense counsel questioned her about a statement dated September 11, 1996, that she had apparently written. Outside the presence of the jury, the district attorney objected that he had not been provided discovery of the statement in violation of discovery rules. Defense counsel claimed he had provided the statement. After further discussion, the court said that until the problem is solved . . . I am going to order that no reference be made to the statement. A short time later, the court reiterated, I am going to order at least for the time being that no reference be made to that document. The witness was then excused but ordered to remain on call. Defendant never again sought to use the statement. Defendant contends the court erred when it refused to allow [him] to present evidence of a prior consistent statement by defense witness Maria Velasco. However, the court did not refuse to permit defendant to present the evidence. It merely ordered use of the statement be postponed pending resolution of the discovery problem. Doing so was within the court's discretion. A trial court has inherent as well as statutory discretion to control the proceedings to ensure the efficacious administration of justice. ( People v. Cox (1991) 53 Cal.3d 618, 700, 280 Cal. Rptr. 692, 809 P.2d 351; see Pen.Code, § 1044, Evid.Code, § 765.) Nothing prevented defense counsel from attempting to use the statement later. We do not know why counsel chose to drop the matter rather than bring it up again, but we see no error of which defendant can complain. Moreover, the statement was brief and consistent with Velasco's trial testimony. The fact that Velasco said the same thing in September 1996, approximately three months after the crime, would not have significantly added to her credibility. We see no prejudice even if we were to assume that the court should have allowed defendant to question Velasco about it from the beginning.