Opinion ID: 2552553
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Family Friend's Concerns About Defendant's Welfare

Text: Defendant claims that the trial court erred in sustaining, on relevance grounds, the prosecution's objection to a question he put to a family friend, Paul Roelen, whether he was concerned about defendant's welfare based on his knowledge of conditions in defendant's household in early 1993. Witnesses testified at the penalty phase that defendant's home life was difficult. Roelen testified that defendant had no bed or bedroom and slept on the floor. He also testified about the unpleasant conditions in defendant's residence: Pierre Sarrazin was arrogant, drug usage was rife, defendant and his sister had to tend to their own welfare, and life in the house was generally chaotic and tense. During a brief redirect examination, defense counsel asked, Based upon your time there at the Sarrazin house and your observations, were you concerned about Mark [defendant]? When the prosecutor objected on relevance grounds, the trial court sustained the objection. On appeal, defendant argues that the evidence was relevant lay opinion testimony. We disagree. The trial court did not abuse its discretion ( People v. Carter, supra, 36 Cal.4th 1114, 1166-1167, 32 Cal. Rptr.3d 759, 117 P.3d 476) in ruling that the question was irrelevant. It could reasonably rule that inasmuch as it called for Roelen's lay opinion, the answer would not have been helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony (Evid.Code, § 800). The jury had just heard Roelen's testimony about conditions in defendant's house in 1993. His testimony was clear and detailed, and there was no need to elicit an opinion to clarify testimony that was already perfectly understandable to the trier of fact.
Defendant contends that the cumulative effect of the trial court's rulings sustaining the prosecutor's objections to his proffered mitigating evidence was prejudicial. However, we have found only one assumed error â sustaining an objection to a question about Berta Siy's response to defendant's request to be adopted by the Siys. We have found no prejudice from that single ruling. Accordingly, there was no error to cumulate.