Opinion ID: 844218
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Examination of Renele Brooks and Sara Frausto

Text: Defendant contends the prosecutor engaged in improper vouching for the credibility of Renele Brooks's testimony when, during redirect examination, he asked her, [On] June first when you finally talked to the deputies truthfully, you didn't call them, did you? Defendant did not object to the prosecutor's question, and, therefore, his appellate claim is forfeited. Defendant contends the prosecutor also improperly vouched for Brooks's testimony on another occasion during redirect examination when, in the course of questioning her concerning the circumstances of her later interview with the homicide detectives, the prosecutor asked whether Brooks had been accompanied by her lawyer because you wanted to make sure that everything was legal that was going on? After defendant objected, the trial court ruled that the question was beyond the scope of proper redirect examination, and ordered the jury to disregard Brooks's answer, which was yes. In light of the trial court's ruling, we conclude no prejudicial misconduct occurred. Defendant next contends the prosecutor improperly dwelled upon an inflammatory term and twisted the meaning of Brooks's testimony concerning what defendant said concerning the reason he shot at the deputies. During her direct examination, Brooks testified defendant said that after Avila threw his gun, all defendant could think of was that because he had two strikes and was in possession of two handguns, he would go back to jail for the rest of his lifeand so, instead, he shot at the deputies in order to escape. During cross-examination, defense counsel asked whether Brooks remembered telling the deputies that defendant had said he wasn't going to jail for . . . no bullshit. Brooks stated she did tell the deputies that, and also testified that she did not ask defendant what the bullshit was, and that it was never explained in the conversation. On redirect examination, the prosecutor sought to clarify Brooks's understanding of what defendant meant by saying he was not going to go to jail for no bullshit. She testified that she understood defendant's statement to mean he viewed the possibility of his being convicted of a third strike for possession of the handguns and sent to prison for the rest of his life was the subject bullshit. Defense counsel objected to the prosecutor's questions as leading and beyond the scope of redirect examination, but the trial court overruled the objections. Defendant asserts on appeal that the repeated use of the word bullshit during redirect examination was intended to inflame the jury, and that the prosecutor's questions twisted the assertedly obvious meaning of defendant's statement namely, that any criminal charge arising out of that shooting would be groundless. Because at trial defendant did not object on these specific grounds, his claims are forfeited. Defendant contends that when the prosecutor asked Brooks questions regarding whether she had heard Young Crowd members speaking of the sheriff's deputies' having shot a member of the gang, these questions improperly emphasized gang membership in order to inflame the jury. The trial court sustained defense counsel's objection to the question, finding it argumentative, and the prosecutor rephrased the question. Defendant did not request an admonition. Even to the extent that a claim of misconduct regarding the question was preserved, defendant could not have been prejudiced in light of the trial court's action and the circumstance that the jury already was aware of defendant's membership in the gang. Defendant contends the prosecutor committed misconduct when questioning Sara Frausto concerning what she heard Douglas Bristol say regarding the shooting. The substance of what she heard Bristol say was that defendant did it. The trial court initially sustained defendant's hearsay objection to Frausto's testimony, but, contrary to defendant's characterization of the record, also recognized that the prosecutor might seek to have the statement admitted not for the truth of the matter asserted, but to establish Frausto's state of mind when she later asked defendant about the shooting. Defendant urges that the prosecutor's subsequent questions regarding Bristol's statement constituted misconduct because the prosecutor continue[d] to ask the same questions to which the trial court ha[d] just sustained an objection and [reminded] the jury of the stricken answer. Assuming defendant's claim is not forfeited, it lacks merit. The prosecutor asked questions regarding Bristol's statement for a nonhearsay purpose (to establish Frausto's state of mind), which the trial court acknowledged would be proper. When the trial court ultimately permitted the prosecutor to elicit what Frausto heard Bristol say, the court gave a proper and detailed instruction to the jury concerning the limited purpose for which the testimony was being admitted. [24] Accordingly, there was no misconduct.