Opinion ID: 2607459
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Evidence of Failure to Call Defense Expert

Text: During redirect examination one Wednesday morning, the prosecutor asked Garbutt whether hair obtained in th[e] case had been made available to any other experts for comparison. The witness answered in the affirmative, and said he had forwarded the evidence to Robert Ogle, an independent criminalist ... working for the defense. Defendant did not object, and no other questions or answers touched on the subject. Garbutt and a few other witnesses testified for the remainder of the day. Court was then recessed for the next four calendar days. The following Monday, before the jury returned from recess, defendant moved to strike Garbutt's testimony about Ogle. Defense counsel said he originally intended to object outside the jury's presence at the first available opportunity but had suffered a lapse in memory. Counsel argued that the prosecutor had improperly revealed privileged information concerning the identity of a defense expert, and that the jury might mistakenly infer the defense was withholding important information. The court was also urged to instruct the jury to disregard the evidence. When counsel said he planned to file additional case authority, the court took the matter under submission for a few days. The court ultimately ruled that even though defendant's motion to strike the reference to Ogle was untimely, it would be granted. The court indicated that it was reluctant to admonish the jury because the gist of the stricken testimony would have to be repeated. However, at counsel's insistence, the court instructed the jury in terms proposed by the defense. [13] (18) Defendant repeats his claim that the prosecutor improperly disclosed privileged information about a defense expert and thereby violated his right to effective representation under the federal and state Constitutions. Defendant also complains that the belated nature of the court's admonition highlighted, rather than minimized, the original prejudice. Contrary to defendant's characterization of the issue, a prompt objection and admonition would have cured any harmful effect of the reference to defense expert Ogle. Defendant's substantive claims have therefore been waived on appeal. (Evid. Code, § 353; People v. Price, supra, 1 Cal.4th 324, 440.) In any event, we cannot find prejudice in the timing of the admonition. The late admonition was given at defense counsel's insistence and stemmed from counsel's admitted mistake in failing to raise the matter promptly. We assume the jury followed the court's instruction to disregard the reference to Ogle whenever given. And, the content of the admonition was far removed from issues raised at trial. Reversal is not required.