Opinion ID: 1170873
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Curtailment of Cross-examination of Victoria Huffman

Text: (11a) Defendant's next contention concerns a meeting at a restaurant between his girlfriend Dorothy Hicks, Huffman, and Huffman's wife Victoria. During cross-examination of Victoria, defense counsel began to question her about this meeting. Stating this was the first he had heard of any such meeting, the prosecutor asked for a conference in chambers. There, counsel expressed his belief that Victoria, if she testified truthfully, would declare Huffman stated he was the killer; counsel took the position that this statement, although hearsay, would be admissible as a declaration against penal interest under Evidence Code section 1230. [2] Claiming this line of questioning would be unduly prejudicial unless counsel could first show Victoria would indeed testify to an admission by Huffman, the prosecutor requested a hearing on the matter outside the presence of the jury pursuant to Evidence Code section 402. Counsel objected, [I]f she denies that her husband said those things I want her to deny that in front of the jury because I believe I have proof that she did say those things and I think that's important. The court overruled the objection. At the hearing Victoria denied that Huffman admitted he was the killer. Defense counsel did not request permission to use her denial before the jury as a basis for impeachment, nor did he make an offer of proof of the evidence he proposed to introduce for impeachment. The court then barred counsel from continuing his line of questioning in front of the jury. Defendant claims that the ruling was error. He argues that it improperly limited confrontation and cross-examination by depriving him of the opportunity to impeach Victoria's expected denial of Huffman's admission. We are not persuaded. The court's ruling was based, at least in part, on an implied determination that the proposed line of questioning was unduly prejudicial, i.e., that it would result in substantially more harm to the prosecution than benefit to the defense. Looking to the record before the court at that time, we cannot conclude that this determination was without adequate support: as stated above, defense counsel made no offer of proof of the evidence he proposed to introduce for impeachment. Defendant now asserts that counsel would have presented the following evidence: Hicks would have testified that at the restaurant meeting Huffman did in fact admit he was the killer; she would also have testified that Victoria said to her, upon finding her in flagrante delicto with Huffman, How can you sleep with my husband when he's the one responsible for your fiance being in jail. Stay away from him, how could such a thing happen. Defendant's offer of proof, however, comes too late. Therefore, it cannot undermine the determination made by the court at trial. Accordingly, we reject the claim that the court's ruling was error.