Opinion ID: 1237936
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Cross-examination of Defendant About Banks Killing

Text: On direct examination, defendant testified that he was not prosecuted for the killing of inmate Leroy Banks, although he received administrative punishment, and that his counsel had advised him not to discuss the matter during his testimony in this trial. On cross-examination, the prosecution asked whether defendant's motive for stabbing Banks was that Banks had made disparaging remarks about another inmate. Defense counsel objected and a hearing was held outside the jury's presence. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court said it needed additional time to think about the matter and directed the prosecutor to proceed with cross-examination with the exception of that area. After a five-day break in the proceedings, the prosecutor resumed cross-examination of defendant, during which he asked: Let's talk about the Banks incident. May 29th, 1978, in San Quentin Prison. Why did you stab inmate Banks twenty, thirty times to death? At defense counsel's request, a hearing was held at the bench. The court decided to defer a ruling on the matter and instructed the prosecution to proceed on other topics. (118) Defendant contends that the prosecution's second inquiry into the Banks matter was a deliberate violation of a court ruling and therefore misconduct. The record provides little support for this view. The prosecutor explained during the bench hearing that he had understood that questioning on the Banks matter had been deferred only to give defense counsel additional time to discuss with defendant whether he should answer the questions or assert his privilege against self-incrimination and thereby risk having his entire testimony stricken. The trial court apparently accepted this as a plausible interpretation of its ruling. In any event, there is no reasonable possibility of prejudice. Defendant explained on direct examination that he was not discussing the Banks incident on advice of counsel. The allegedly improper questions did no more than illustrate this fact.