Opinion ID: 2570148
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Hannah Lunsford

Text: Defendant's sister Hannah testified at length about defendant's troubled childhood and adolescence. She described his problems in the trailer park, in church, in school, with the family, with friends, with girls, and with alcohol. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Hannah if she knew all of the things that he was doing since early adolescence until the crimes that he committed in this case. Hannah said she did not. When asked specifically about other criminal activity, Hannah said she was aware of other crimes. The prosecutor then asked if she had seen the Gaughan report. Defense counsel requested a bench conference, at which he strongly objected to the prosecutor's use of the Gaughan report as irrelevant, prejudicial, [and] beyond the scope. He complained that the questioning was very suggestive, and not responsive to Hannah's testimony that defendant was an increasingly disturbed young man. The prosecutor responded that he did not intend to identify specific incidents in the report, but only to question Hannah generally about what she knew, as he had done with Marietta. The court ruled that once defense counsel presented a particular portrait of defendant's personality or background, the prosecutor was entitled to bring out other aspects of his character. The court told the prosecutor he could ask about specific instances, but advised him to avoid general statements about criminal activity. The court asked defense counsel if he would like an instruction telling the jury to disregard that reference by the prosecutor. Counsel accepted this offer. The court told the jury, there was a question asked where the witness made a statement something to the effect of I was aware of other, quote, criminal activity, end quote. You're directed to disregard that. If there is any specific instances of conduct, the attorneys will [be] talking about thatthose specific instances. But when someone uses a broad general term such as criminal conduct or crimes or something of that nature, different people may mean different things. And it might well be very misleading. On the other hand, it may be very accurate. But rather than just talk about a general label, if there are any specific instances of specific conduct that are relevant to the testimony that's been given, the attorneys will discuss that specific conduct, and it will be up to you then to evaluate the conduct. So you are instructed to disregard the question and answer that related to other criminal activity. Not consider it for any purpose. The prosecutor gave Hannah a copy of the Gaughan report to read during a break, asking her specifically to examine those pages where the doctor described the things defendant said he had done. The prosecutor said he would be asking her whether she was personally aware of any of those incidents. After the recess, before the jury returned, the prosecutor advised the court that Hannah knew about only a few things in the report, including an incident in which defendant felt rejected by a woman, the Peeping Tom incident, and his interest in pornography and violent movies. Defense counsel again objected, arguing that the prosecutor's line of questioning was unduly prejudicial and not probative under Evidence Code section 352, and an infringement on defendant's constitutional rights to an effective penalty phase defense. [11] The prosecutor explained that he intended to call Dr. Gaughan to bring in the specifics of those parts of the report the court deemed admissible, but he was not going to be specific with Hannah, asking her only which areas are you aware of. The court approved of this approach, noting it would be improper to question the witness about incidents she did not know about, although those might be brought in directly through Dr. Gaughan. Defense counsel argued that the court's original ruling was that if he elicited testimony that defendant was just a fine angelic kid until the day before this incident, that of course in rebuttal to that, . . . other instances could come out. However, now the court was permitting the report to be used with every witness, whatever the nature of their testimony. The court responded that if the defense put on witnesses to testify to various aspects of the defendant's character, . . . various things in his background, the prosecution was entitled to bring out other aspects that have not been discussed by the witness, whether or not the witness was aware of them. When Hannah returned, the prosecutor described the report as including three types of areas. The court overruled defense counsel's objection that the prosecutor was in effect testifying. The prosecutor identified the three areas as certain incidents in defendant's life from the time he was an adolescent, certain fantasies he had, and the kind of person he wanted to be. Hannah agreed with this as far as I can tell. The court sustained an objection to a question whether Hannah was aware of the kind of person defendant wanted to be, telling the prosecutor not to go into specifics of which Hannah was unaware. The court sustained another objection to a general question whether Hannah was aware of defendant's fantasies. Asked about actual incidents she knew of, Hannah said she had heard about the Peeping Tom episode. The court sustained a hearsay objection, instructing Hannah to testify only about what she saw herself or heard from defendant. The only such matters were defendant's rejection by a woman, his interest in women's magazines, and his enjoyment of violent movies. The court erroneously overruled defense counsel's objections to the use of the Gaughan report during Hannah's cross-examination. Unlike Marietta, Hannah did not present a generally favorable picture of defendant's character. Her testimony about his troubled childhood did not open the door to evidence of defendant's criminal misconduct, fantasies, or aspirations. ( People v. Ramirez, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 1193.) The fact that Hannah was unaware of some of the incidents in the Gaughan report did not contradict her testimony about the problems defendant had as a youth. Moreover, the prosecutor improperly characterized the contents of the report, rather than confining his questions to particular matters pertaining to Hannah's direct testimony. Although the court properly admonished the jury not to consider the prosecutor's description of the criminal activity in the report, the prosecutor's use of the report with this witness was overbroad and improperly suggestive.