Opinion ID: 2520047
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Eliciting Testimony of Defendant's Prior Convictions

Text: Defendant contends the prosecutor engaged in misconduct when she intentionally elicited testimony designed to reveal defendant's prior conviction. This, defendant argues, was in direct contravention of the trial court's ruling bifurcating the trial. The complained-of reference to defendant's prior conviction occurred during the prosecutor's direct examination of Detective John Holtzberger regarding Macias's identification of defendant from a photographic line-up. Asked how he managed to get [defendant's] photograph in the lineup, Detective Holtzberger replied: [Macias] told us that he knew Alfredo.... [¶] So at that time we felt we had a possible suspect and we then went to the jail and found a mug photo and put it in this mug photo lineup. (Italics added.) Defendant failed to object at trial and, despite defendant's assertion that the misconduct here was massive, we conclude that an admonition would have cured any prejudice. Detective Holtzberger's fleeting reference to jail was not so outrageous or inherently prejudicial that an admonition could not have cured it. ( People v. Dennis (1998) 17 Cal.4th 468, 521, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 680, 950 P.2d 1035 ( Dennis ).) Even if this claim were not forfeited, we find no evidence of misconduct. The prosecutor merely asked Detective Holtzberger how he managed to get defendant's photograph in the photographic lineup, not necessarily where he got the photograph. The question appears directed at eliciting testimony regarding the reasons why Detective Holtzberger included defendant's photograph in the lineup. This is partly evidenced by Detective Holtzberger's response to the question. He did not immediately say he went to the jail, but gave the chain of information that led him to include defendant in the photographic lineup.