Opinion ID: 2581604
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Questioning of Defendant Regarding Surprise at Being Charged with Sodomy and Rape

Text: During defendant's direct examination, defense counsel asked, Mr. Benavides, were you surprised when the Police Department charged you with the crime of sodomy and rape of this child? Before he replied, the court sustained the prosecutor's objection on the grounds of relevancy. Defendant now argues that his objective in seeking to introduce this testimony was to refute the implication that he harbored consciousness of guilt, as suggested by prosecution evidence regarding his demeanor at the hospital where he exhibited little concern, his having stayed in the car while Consuelo was initially brought into the emergency room, his nonchalant attitude witnessed by nurses at DMC, his silence, his staring at the floor, and his failure to make eye contact with the detectives during initial interrogations. He argues that the exclusion of his answer amounted to the exclusion of exculpatory evidence showing that he had no such guilty knowledge. This claim was not properly preserved for appeal. As we have emphasized in the past, `our review on direct appeal is limited to the appellate record.' ( People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 952, 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, 997 P.2d 1044.) Defendant did not answer the question posed to him or make an offer of proof (Evid.Code, § 353; People v. Valdez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 73, 108, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 271, 82 P.3d 296 ( Valdez ) [to preserve an alleged error for appeal an offer of proof must inform the trial court of the purpose and relevance of the excluded evidence]), and we decline to speculate as to what defendant now claims  that he was surprised at his arrest because he did not think himself guilty of the charges. Further, defendant fails to show the court abused its discretion in excluding the answer to his question. In light of defendant's consistent testimony that he did not know what happened to Consuelo and was not guilty of the charged offenses, any self-serving assertion that he was surprised at his arrest for rape and sodomy was of limited probative value and would have added little, if anything, to defendant's posture at trial. Defendant also claims that court error in excluding this evidence violated his rights to due process, to present a defense, to testify on his own behalf, and to a reliable penalty determination pursuant to the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution. This federal claim fails because, as we have concluded, the trial court's exclusion of this evidence was not in error.