Opinion ID: 2520047
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Correct False or Misleading Testimony

Text: Defendant contends his federal due process rights were violated by the prosecutor's failure to correct false or misleading testimony given by Detective Terrio during cross-examination. During that examination, defense counsel asked Detective Terrio whether tennis shoes were found or seized during a search of defendant's home. Detective Terrio initially responded that he did not collect any tennis shoes, but in response to further questioning stated that he did not recall. He added, at the time we made the search I was familiar with the characteristics or the design of this shoe print impression [left at the crime scene]. And the reason none of the shoes were seized or on [ sic ] taken would have been because they were not consistent with the pattern. Defendant argues this testimony was false and misleading because the inventory sheet signed by Detective Terrio, which was attached to the return of the search warrant, indicates that a pair of Nike tennis shoes was collected from defendant's home. The Attorney General does not dispute defendant's assertion that Detective Terrio's testimony was false and misleading, but instead responds that the claim is forfeited because defendant did not object at trial, and even if not forfeited, it was incumbent on the defense, not the prosecution, to correct any false testimony. We reject defendant's claim but for reasons other than those proffered by the Attorney General. The evidence introduced at trial fails to establish that Detective Terrio's testimony was false or misleading. No testimony was elicited during the trial that tennis shoes were seized from defendant's house. The inventory sheet relied upon by defendant to support his contention is included in the clerk's transcript, but it was not introduced or relied upon at trial. We cannot, thus, determine on the record before us whether Detective Terrio's testimony was false or misleading because we cannot determine whether the entry in the inventory sheet regarding Nike tennis shoes was accurate. (See, e.g., People v. Jones (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1084, 1109, 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 370, 70 P.3d 359 [record on appeal insufficient to support defendant's claim].)