Opinion ID: 2575997
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Claim of improper cross-examination by prosecutor

Text: Defense witness Hank Kennedy testified on direct examination that defendant should not be sentenced to death because he could lead a productive life in prison. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Hank a number of questions concerning defendant's criminal background. Hank was asked if it was a pretty accurate guess to say that defendant had been out of jail or prison for only six months in 11 years. Hank responded, Probably. When he was asked about defendant's listing his occupation on California Department of Correction records as being a robber, Hank replied, I'm not gonna deny he's ever robbed anyone. Hank responded to a prosecution question about defendant's telling him of using a sawed-off shotgun on a lady and a kid to do a robbery by saying defendant told him about that but not on a woman and a child, no. Later during the cross-examination, the prosecution asked Hank if defendant's job in 1976 as an electrician ended because defendant went to federal prison for stealing cars and taking them across state lines. Hank answered, I'm not sure what he was in federal prison for but I believe so. When asked by the prosecution if defendant and Hank had been arrested in a guns and dope case, Hank replied that the case was dismissed. Defendant argues that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by asking questions on cross-examination involving prior bad acts by defendant. We disagree. Evidence of specific instances of conduct is admissible to attack the credibility of a witness. (Evid.Code, ง 1101, subd. (c).) Thus, the prosecution may cross-examine a defense character witness about acts inconsistent with the witness's testimony as long as the prosecution has a good faith belief that such acts actually occurred. ( People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1170, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121, 954 P.2d 384.)