Opinion ID: 2633509
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: Georgeann Demetrulias

Text: Defendant complains first that Georgeann Demetrulias was precluded from testifying that when they were young, their mother Tula told defendant he was of little value. The nature and purpose of this testimony, however, was not made clear at the time of the exclusion; we therefore could not reverse on this ground even if we concluded the evidence was admissible and its exclusion caused a miscarriage of justice. (Evid.Code, § 354, subd. (a); see People v. Whitt (1990) 51 Cal.3d 620, 647-650, 274 Cal.Rptr. 252, 798 P.2d 849.) The entire exchange involving this evidence was as follows: Q (by [defense counsel]): Did your mom tell Greg and the kids at times [The prosecutor]: Objection hearsay. The Court: Sustained. Q: Were you told that you were of little value by your mother? [The prosecutor]: Objection. Hearsay. The Court: Sustained. We may assume that defense counsel's first question, had it been completed, would have been whether Tula had told defendant and his siblings they were of little value. But this assumption is based on counsel's second question, which of course had not yet been asked when the court sustained the hearsay objection to the first question. Although defendant now argues the witness's answer to the first question would have been relevant and admissible for a nonhearsay purpose (showing that Tula told defendant he was worthless, not that Tula's statement was true), the trial court could not know that at the time because counsel did not tell the court what her complete question was and what answer she expected the witness to give. For all the trial court could tell, the question called for a hearsay answer. (Evid.Code, § 354, subd. (a); People v. Fauber (1992) 2 Cal.4th 792, 854, 9 Cal. Rptr.2d 24, 831 P.2d 249.) [14] Even assuming error, exclusion of this testimony in mitigation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (See People v. Fudge (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1075, 1117-1118, 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 321, 875 P.2d 36.) The witness had already testified that Tula was a strong disciplinarian with a violent temper, that when she had been drinking she gave the children the impression they really couldn't do anything right, and that she told them she never wanted to have kids and they were the biggest mistake she ever made. There is no reasonable possibility the penalty verdict would have been affected had Georgeann additionally testified Tula told the children they were of little value. Second, defendant contends the trial court erroneously excluded testimony by Georgeann that it is hard for the family to be together. The record, however, reflects that Georgeann did so testify, without objection. She said that each of the Demetrulias children had made a decision about abandonment, and we all went away and that none of us can even be with each other. To counsel's further question, It's hard for the family to be together even now? the witness answered, Yes. She then (without any further question being asked) repeated that they had all gone their own ways, adding that it was just very painful. An objection to her attempted further statement of what happened even today when we get together was sustained on the basis of nonresponsiveness. The record does not show, and the trial court could not have known, what the witness was going to say happened when the family gets together. As she had already answered, affirmatively, the question of whether it was hard for them to be together, the continued testimony did appear nonresponsive and the objection was properly sustained. More important, the testimony defendant complains was excluded was actually admitted.