Opinion ID: 2589798
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Alleged Misconduct by Prosecutor and Codefendant's Counsel

Text: Defendant alleges numerous instances of misconduct by both the prosecutor and Flores's counsel during the guilt phase, claiming they violated his constitutional right to due process and a fair trial. At the outset we note that as a general rule, objections to codefendant's counsel's actions do not fall within the rubric of misconduct. Reasonably understood, the claim on appeal is that the trial court violated the evidence rules in admitting certain testimony over defendant's objection. Here, Flores's counsel elicited from Flores that Flores was afraid of defendant after he saw defendant hit Chandler with a baseball bat. Counsel then asked, Are you still afraid of Chris Box? Yes. Counsel then approached Flores, and asked, What is this? It's a[n] elevator band. What's an elevator band? It's so when I have to go places, I go through the elevator instead of the stairwell. And why don't you go in the stairwell? Defendant's objection was sustained. Flores's evidence that he was afraid of defendant was relevant to his duress defense. Moreover, Flores and defendant blamed each other for the murders. The jury could reasonably conclude that if Flores's version of the August 9 events were true, he had reason to fear defendant; if his version were false, he similarly should feel frightened of him. During Flores's cross-examination of Rodney Almond, counsel asked if Almond recalled testifying at the preliminary hearing. Almond said yes. You hador you expressed some reluctance at that hearing in identifying Mr. Box, didn't you? Right. Was that because you felt you were being threatened? Yeah, I believe so. Defendant objected, and the court stated, Oh, I think I'll let you take care of it on cross. On redirect, the prosecutor asked, Were you afraid of Mr. Box when you testified at the first preliminary exam? No, I don't believe so. On cross-examination by defendant's counsel, Almond was asked, And when you stated that you felt threatened and that's why you didn't identify Mr. Box, you weren't threatened by Mr. Box in particular, were you? No. Of course, the reason Almond failed to originally identify defendant was relevant to the strength of his identification at trial. The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion in overruling the objection. Moreover, Almond subsequently clarified any misimpression created by his response to the question posed by Flores's counsel. Defendant also contends there were several instances of prosecutorial misconduct. First, he claims the prosecutor violated a court order when she asked jail guard Edward Wells on how many occasions he had seen a trusty make an unauthorized trusty badge. Defense counsel objected and moved for a mistrial. The trial court denied the motion, and expressly ruled that the question was within what it intended to be the scope of its order, and if the court had been presented with that question at the time of its ruling, I would have allowed that question and answer and nothing more. It also stated, That much is legitimate; that much she's got; that's all she gets. Next, defendant claims the prosecutor committed misconduct during her questioning of Dennis Burns. Burns testified on cross-examination that prior to his testimony at the preliminary hearing he had taken two Valium pills, and that he had lied under oath at the hearing when he testified he had not taken any drugs that day. On redirect, the prosecutor asked, At the time that you testified at the preliminary exam for Mr. Box you testified to the same material that you're now telling the jury; is that correct? Yes. And you had taken two Valiums before you came to court? Yes, I did. Why? I was scared. Of what? Well Defense counsel's objection was overruled. Burns said, Well, first of all, I heard the first preliminary hearing had someor first hearing had some problems in the hallway. I wasyou know, I was afraid about taking the stand. I was nervous. I hear Valiums calm that. There was no objection, and the subject matter was changed. Assuming defendant has not waived a claim of prosecutorial misconduct by failing to renew his objection, there was no misconduct. Contrary to defendant's assertion, the prosecutor did not question Burns in such a way that implied he had been threatened by defendant. Nor did her questioning create the implication that [defendant] was responsible for causing problems in the hall or for authorizing someone to frighten witnesses. Indeed, it was unclear whether the hearing Burns referred to involved defendant, or what the problems were with reference to that hearing; moreover, his information was not based on personal knowledge. Next, defendant challenges a conversation between the prosecutor and Almond at the preliminary hearing. As noted above, Almond testified at trial that he had initially failed to identify defendant at the preliminary hearing because he felt threatened. On cross-examination, defendant's counsel asked Almond, [W]hen you stated that you felt threatened and that's why you didn't identify Mr. Box [at the preliminary hearing], you weren't threatened by Mr. Box in particular, were you? No. In fact, when you initially failed to identify him, there was a recess in the proceedings, correct? Right. Almond further testified that the prosecutor had taken him to a back room and said something to the effect that `This isn't a game and don't bullshit around. This is serious.'  Defense counsel inquired, And so after you had this conversation with [the prosecutor], you were then able to make an identification? Right. Contrary to defendant's assertion, reminding a witness of the gravity of the proceedings is not misconduct. Nothing in the prosecutor's remarks can be construed as coercion or intimidation to testify falsely. Finally, defendant contends that during closing argument, the prosecutor referred to `facts' which were nowhere in evidence, and invited jurors to base their verdict on unfounded speculation. In particular, defendant now objects to the prosecutor's statement that Bryan said to defendant, Chris, why did you break my mommy's window? We reject defendant's claim at the outset because he failed to satisfy the general rule requiring assignment of misconduct and request for admonition as to the prosecutor's comment of which he now complains, and no exception is applicable. ( People v. Berryman (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1048, 1072, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 867, 864 P.2d 40, overruled on other grounds in People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 823, fn. 1, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 656, 952 P.2d 673.) We also reject the claim on the merits. In Flores's police statement, which was presented to the jury, he stated that he and defendant drove off to look for Almond. When they did so, defendant closed the door and it locked. When defendant returned, he had to break Bryan's bedroom window to reenter. He broke the window and that's when ... he said the little boy said, `You broke my window.'  Moreover, there was evidence in the record that Bryan knew defendant and called him Chris. While the prosecutor clearly modified Flores's statement to increase its sympathetic value, her modification was based on inferences drawn from the record. Moreover, defendant was free to remind the jury of the actual language in Flores's statement. No misconduct is evident.