Opinion ID: 2602047
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Direct Testimony of Defendant's Mother

Text: Defendant's mother was the first defense witness. She testified after Christine Hougan testified about the impact her mother's death had on her. Defense counsel asked defendant's mother whether there was something you wanted to say first before we got to the formal questioning? The prosecutor objected that there was no question pending and the trial court sustained the objection. Defense counsel then asked, Did hearing Christine Hougan's testimony move you to want to say something? Defendant's mother responded Yes and defense counsel inquired What's that? The prosecutor objected and the trial court sustained the objection on relevance grounds. The parties then approached the bench. The trial court said it suspected that defendant's mother, like everyone in the courtroom, felt bad for Christine Hougan, but the fact that she felt sorry for the victim's family was neither relevant nor admissible as mitigating evidence. Defense counsel argued that the testimony was relevant to the credibility of defendant's mother. Counsel explained that defendant's mother would testify that it was very hard and that if she could undo it herself, she would. The trial court ruled that defense counsel was trying to demonstrate the character of defendant's mother, which was irrelevant. (12) Defendant contends the trial court erred by excluding relevant evidence concerning the credibility of defendant's mother, violating his rights under state law and the federal Constitution. We disagree. Evidence Code section 780 permits credibility evidence that has any tendency in reason to prove or disprove the truthfulness of [the witness's] testimony. (Italics added.) Defendant does not explain how his mother's desire to undo the murder was relevant to her truthfulness. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding the testimony was irrelevant. ( People v. Marlow, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 152.)