Opinion ID: 2518032
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: James Park Cross-examination

Text: Defendant contends the prosecutor committed misconduct during cross-examination of James Park, a former administrator in the California Department of Corrections. Defendant asserts the prosecutor asked questions that improperly and incorrectly suggested that defendant might be released, even if sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole. Although the trial court admonished the jury, defendant claims the court erred in failing to grant his motion for a mistrial. [20] The prosecutor asked Park, Are you familiar with the concept of the 30-year review procedure? Defendant did not object. Park answered, Not in detail. I know they do feel they ought to review prisoners from time to time even though they have no parole opportunity. When the prosecutor asked if subsequent reviews occur every five years, Park responded that he did not know, but accepted that possibility. The prosecutor moved on to questions regarding prison security. The trial court sustained defendant's objection to the prosecutor's question about a recent prison escape, after which the prosecutor asked to approach the bench. The court met with counsel in chambers. The prosecutor advised that she wanted to make an offer of proof regarding her escape question. After some discussion, the trial court then asked, What is this thing about a 30-year review procedure? Is the jury supposed to now speculate life without parole means something other than that? The prosecutor responded, I did not suggest this. There is a difference between the governor's power to commute and the 30-year review. The court described her answer as disingenuous and stated, Whatever the source is you have now introduced to the jurors the suggestion that there is such a thing as a 30-year review. Although the court acknowledged that it was unaware of the 30-year review procedure, it believed her question implied a review for release. [21] Nevertheless, the court advised that any harm could be cured by an instruction. The trial court and counsel then returned to the prosecutor's question regarding the prison escape, after which defense counsel asked how the court intended to address the issue of the 30-year review. The court again stated that it was unclear about the purpose of the 30-year review, noting there were several reasons why the Board of Prison Terms (now Board of Parole Hearings) might review a prisoner's status. The court stated that if the review was for an administrative rather than parole purpose, it would admonish the jury. Park was examined in chambers. He acknowledged that he was not aware of all Board of Prison Terms' policies but stated that parole consideration was not given at the 30-year review. The court asked whether the review concerned making sure somebody just doesn't get lost in terms of classification. Park replied that classification is part of the purpose, but conceded that he did not know the scope of the review. Park stated that the parole board like[s] to keep a string on everybody. But certainly it has nothing to do with parole. The parties agreed that defense counsel, in his redirect examination, would elicit Park's testimony as to his understanding of the 30-year review. After a further discussion regarding the court's proposed admonition, defense counsel made a motion for a mistrial. The court denied the motion, stating that a curative instruction was sufficient. The court invited comment from defense counsel on the content of the instruction, but defense counsel submitted the matter. Park testified on redirect examination that the 30-year review conducted by the Board of Prison Terms is not a parole hearing in any way. As to the goal of the review, Park said he assumed from past experience that the intent is to be assured that the prison system is working properly for that particular prisoner. At the conclusion of Park's testimony, the court instructed the jury: Life without possibility of parole means exactly that, and for purposes of determining the sentence in this case, you must assume the defendant will never be paroled. Respondent argues that defendant forfeited his claim of prosecutorial misconduct by failing to make a timely objection on that ground and requesting that the jury be admonished. However, in view of the extended colloquy among the court and counsel on the propriety of the prosecutor's questions, we consider defendant's motion for a mistrial sufficient to preserve his claim. In People v. Ramos (1984) 37 Cal.3d 136, 155-159 [207 Cal.Rptr. 800, 689 P.2d 430], we struck down the so-called Briggs Instruction informing the jury that the Governor is empowered to commute a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Defendant argues that the prosecutor's questions, like the Briggs Instruction, invited the jury to speculate that defendant's sentence of life without possibility of parole might be commuted, or that defendant might be released by pardon or parole. Even if we assume the prosecutor's questions were misconduct, they were harmless under any standard. ( People v. Keenan (1988) 46 Cal.3d 478, 509 [250 Cal.Rptr. 550, 758 P.2d 1081].) The questions were brief, isolated, and ambiguous. Park ultimately testified that the event was an administrative review unrelated to parole. The trial court admonished the jury that life without possibility of parole means exactly that, and that the jury must assume for sentencing purposes that defendant will never be paroled. The admonition was adequate. (See People v. Montiel (1993) 5 Cal.4th 877, 932 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 705, 855 P.2d 1277].) Defendant complains that the admonition did not cure the harm because it did not address other means of release such as commutation or pardon. Although he now contends the 30-year review was a reference to the Governor's clemency power, there was no evidence before the jury to suggest this was the case. There was no mention by the prosecutor or Park of commutation or pardon. Defendant declined the court's invitation to comment on its content. If defendant wanted additional language in the admonition, he had the opportunity to request it. Having failed to do so, he has forfeited any further claim of error.