Opinion ID: 2582262
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Admission of Rebuttal Evidence

Text: Defendant's juvenile probation officer, Bob Creamer, testified in rebuttal. Defendant challenges portions of that testimony. Creamer testified that he had frequent contact with defendant's father, usually in response to a complaint by his father about [defendant's] behavior. The court overruled defendant's objection and motion to strike this testimony. Creamer also testified that during his supervision, defendant never reported that his father was abusing him. On redirect examination, over defendant's foundation objection, Creamer testified that the father's complaints were very inconsistent with someone who's abusing their child, because a person would not want to have contact with probation or police or any kind of an investigative organization to complain about things that are irritating you if you're dealing with them by abusing your child. Defense counsel then elicited Creamer's testimony that a child abuser might think he was acting appropriately and not consider his conduct abusive. Creamer also could not say whether defendant's father hit defendant with a belt as defendant had testified. Defendant's contention that Creamer's testimony about the father's complaints was irrelevant fails. Creamer did not go into detail regarding the complaints, so the testimony was rather innocuous. The mere fact that the jury heard that defendant's father complained about him could hardly have prejudiced defendant. The testimony was relevant to the jury's evaluation of defendant's own claim that his father had abused him. Defendant also contends that the prosecution did not establish that the juvenile probation officer had sufficient expertise to render an opinion that the conduct of [defendant's] father was inconsistent with his being a child abuser. Assuming defendant's foundation objection was sufficient to preserve this issue ( Champion, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 908, fn. 6, 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 547, 891 P.2d 93), there was no error. The prosecution established that Creamer had substantial expertise. He had been a probation officer for 22 years, part of which he spent investigating child abuse cases. He held a college degree and a teaching credential, as well as a year and a half of graduate study in psychology and physiology. Creamer also testified over objection that in his opinion, defendant was not particularly truthful when it wasn't to his advantage, and impressed [him] as being violent. He was volatile and like a ticking time bomb. The testimony was proper rebuttal. Defendant testified that he had become like a mother and father to his siblings and had protected his mother. Creamer's testimony was relevant to defendant's credibility and to present a more balanced picture of his personality. The admission of rebuttal evidence is a matter for the sound discretion of the trial court, which was properly exercised here. ( People v. Raley (1992) 2 Cal.4th 870, 912, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 678, 830 P.2d 712.)