Opinion ID: 2584893
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Assertedly Improper Vouching for the Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses

Text: Defendant asserts that the prosecutor committed misconduct by questioning prosecution witnesses in a manner that allegedly constituted improper vouching for the credibility of prosecution witnesses. It is misconduct for prosecutors to bolster their case `by invoking their personal prestige, reputation, or depth of experience, or the prestige or reputation of their office, in support of it.' [Citation.] Similarly, it is misconduct `to suggest that evidence available to the government, but not before the jury, corroborates the testimony of a witness.' [Citation.] ( People v. Bonilla (2007) 41 Cal.4th 313, 336 [60 Cal.Rptr.3d 209, 160 P.3d 84].) Defendant failed to object to the two alleged instances of vouching he raises on appeal and therefore has forfeited these claims. In any event, no improper vouching occurred. The question posed to Hilda Riggs regarding when, after initially lying to the police, she decided to change [her] story and provide the truth, did not suggest the prosecutor was aware of any evidence not before the jury establishing what the truth was, as defendant now claims. Hilda had just testified at length concerning what happened to Jamie Bowie, and no juror would have interpreted the use of the word truth in the question as a reference to anything other than Hilda's in-court testimony. Defendant recasts his claim, discussed above, that the prosecutor improperly solicited the opinions of Investigator Pina concerning the credibility of the statements of Hilda and defendant as also constituting improper vouching. As we mentioned above, the questions and answers did not suggest that Pina's opinion was based on any evidence not presented to the jury, nor can we conclude the prosecutor was improperly attempting to invoke the prestige, reputation, or depth of experience of the prosecutor, the district attorney's office, Pina, or the sheriff's department. Moreover, as also discussed above, even if there was misconduct, Pina's opinions concerning defendant's guilt and the credibility of the witnesses were not so significant in the eyes of the jury as to have affected the outcome or fairness of the trial.