Opinion ID: 2631133
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Questioning defendant about the credibility of other witnesses

Text: Defendant asserts the prosecutor improperly cross-examined defendant on whether codefendant Wynglarz and witness Gattenby presented false testimony. The following exchange is an example of the prosecutor's were they lying line of questioning: [Prosecutor:] You heard Mr. Wynglarz tell in his version about how you encouraged him to get the [audio] speakers [from Skillman]; is that the way it happened? [Defendant:] No, sir, it is not. [Prosecutor:] Was that just a fabrication from Mr. Wynglarz in your opinion? [Defendant:] Yes, sir, it was a fascinating story. [¶].... [¶] [Prosecutor:] And, in fact, when you came into the house with the gun you heard Gerald Skillman come down the stairs and say, `You guys don't have to do this. This is my mother's house'; you heard him say that? [Defendant:] No, sir, I didn't. [Prosecutor:] You heard Douglas Gattenby testify to that? [Defendant:] Yes, sir, I heard, but that was never said. [Prosecutor:] And you heard Douglas Gattenby tell this court and this jury that he heard you say, `I ain't taking your shit,' and that is when you shot [Skillman]? [Defendant:] No, sir. [Prosecutor:] And you are saying Douglas Gattenby is lying about that, sir? [Defendant:] Yes, sir, he is lying about that. [¶].... [¶] [Prosecutor:] Now, you heard Mr. Wynglarz say that after the shootings you came upstairs to Gerald Skillman's bedroom; you heard him say that? [Defendant:] Yes, sir, I heard. [Prosecutor:] And you are saying that is a lie? [Defendant:] Yes, sir, it is a lie. [Prosecutor:] He is lying about that? [Defendant:] Yes, sir. [¶].... [¶] [Prosecutor:] As you sit here right now do you know of any reason that Mr. Wynglarz would lie about that fact? [Defendant:] I think he is just trying to save his own neck. [Prosecutor:] Now, he said that when you came up to the bedroom, that it was you who told him to take a bag, a duffel bag that was in the bedroom, to take it off the doorknob. Are you saying that that is a lie? [Defendant:] Yes, sir, it is a lie. [¶].... [¶] [Prosecutor:] And Mr. Wynglarz says that you took the gun with you and the bag and that he never saw them again? [Defendant:] No, sir, that is not correct. [Prosecutor:] He is lying about that? [Defendant:] Yes, sir, he is. Recently, in People v. Chatman, supra, 38 Cal.4th at page 384, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 621, ' 133 P.3d 534, we made these observations about were they lying questions by a prosecutor: [C]ourts should carefully scrutinize [a prosecutor's] `were they lying' questions in context. They should not be permitted when argumentative, or when designed to elicit testimony that is irrelevant or speculative. However, in its discretion, a court may permit such questions if the witness to whom they are addressed has personal knowledge that allows him to provide competent testimony that may legitimately assist the trier of fact in resolving credibility questions. With respect to asking such questions of a defendant, we stated: A defendant who is a percipient witness to the events at issue has personal knowledge whether other witnesses who describe those events are testifying truthfully and accurately. As a result, he might also be able to provide insight on whether witnesses whose testimony differs from his own are intentionally lying or are merely mistaken. (Id. at p. 382, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 621, 133 P.3d 534.) Here, by choosing to testify, defendant put his own veracity in issue. Defendant claimed that murder victims Skillman and Rita attacked him at the front door of Skillman's house, that he shot them both in self-defense, and that codefendant Wynglarz concealed defendant's gun in a bag as they left Skillman's house. Wynglarz denied that he planned to rob or shoot anyone, and testified he was shocked when defendant pulled out his gun, ordered Wynglarz into the house, and then shot Skillman and Rita. Gattenby testified that he saw defendant pointing a gun at Skillman and Rita, who had not threatened either defendant or Wynglarz. The prosecution's questions allowed defendant to clarify his position and to explain why codefendant Wynglarz or eyewitness Gattenby might have a reason to testify falsely. The jury properly could consider any such reason defendant provided; if defendant had no explanation, the jury could consider that fact in determining whether to credit defendant's testimony. ( People v. Chatman, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 383, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 621, 133 P.3d 534.) Thus, the prosecution's questions in this case sought to elicit testimony that would properly assist the trier of fact in ascertaining whom to believe. (Ibid.) There was no prosecutorial misconduct.