Opinion ID: 2519742
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Evidentiary ruling: cross-examination of expert witness

Text: Defendant contends a ruling by the trial court improperly permitted the prosecutor to cross-examine defense expert Jerry Enomoto, a former Director of the Department of Corrections, with police reports of defendant's prior arrest incidents (furnished to the defense through discovery) which, defendant argues, were inadmissible hearsay. The reports recounted two arrests in 1975 and one in 1979 during which defendant was drunk and verbally threatened officers, or fled and had to be forcibly taken into custody. It is common practice to challenge an expert by inquiring in good faith about relevant information, including hearsay, which he may have overlooked or ignored. ( People v. Montiel (1993) 5 Cal.4th 877, 924, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 705, 855 P.2d 1277.) The short answer to defendant's contention is that there was no objection and, accordingly, any claim of error has been waived on appeal. ( People v. Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 950, 1014, 22 Cal. Rptr.2d 689, 857 P.2d 1099 [failure to object to prosecutor's references to jailhouse reports].) In any event, the record reflects the defense expressly agreed to a procedure whereby the prosecutor and defense counsel were afforded an opportunity to review the materials (which had been furnished to the defense through discovery, and which counsel had apparently failed to provide to his witness) in preparation for Enomoto's cross-examination. Then, during a second recess, defense counsel, Enomoto, and defendant were afforded an opportunity to discuss the witness's testimony, with defendant expressly agreeing to the strategy being utilized. Finally, the jury was specially instructed that the reports in question were to be considered only for the purpose of determining the weight to be given Enomoto's testimony, and not for the truth of the matters regarding defendant's prior conduct reflected in the reports. Even were the reports improperly considered for their content, the jury had already found defendant guilty of attempting to kill Officer Dunavent in the guilt phase and knew he had previously been convicted of aggravated assault on a police officer. There was neither error nor prejudice.