Opinion ID: 2509294
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Limitation of Cross-examination of Rauni Campbell

Text: During his cross-examination of Rauni Campbell, defense counsel asked her whether she and defendant had smoked marijuana. The prosecutor objected on relevance grounds and the objection was sustained. Defendant argues the trial court's ruling improperly restricted cross-examination and violated his state and federal constitutional rights. Not so. Evidence of a witness's drug use is inadmissible unless the testimony tends to show that the witness was under the influence thereof either (1) while testifying, or (2) when the facts to which he testified occurred, or (3) that his mental faculties were impaired by the use of such narcotics. ( People v. Hernandez (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 393, 405, 133 Cal. Rptr. 745.) Here, defense counsel's question was phrased in the past tense and referred to some unspecified time. It was, therefore, properly excluded as irrelevant. Because the trial court's ruling was proper, there is thus no predicate error on which to base the constitutional claims. ( People v. Roybal, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 506, fn. 2, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 487, 966 P.2d 521.)