Opinion ID: 2624500
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Evidence of Harassment by Defendant's Investigator

Text: Beverly Manning testified for the prosecution that when she was 16 years old and living in Shreveport, Louisiana, she met defendant through her cousins, Jerre Brown and Kenneth Dotson. Defendant took her on a trip to California, where she participated in the assault and robbery of Ruth Story. When she said to defendant, you could have killed this lady for $5.00, he answered that he did not care and just wanted money. Manning told the jury that defendant had a bad temper, that anytime I rebelled against him he wanted to dominate me, and that defendant struck her, pulled a gun on her, and put a knife to her throat. Defendant asked Manning during cross-examination whether she recalled a contact with a defense investigator. Manning volunteered that the investigator was [h]arassing her. On redirect examination, over defendant's objection, the prosecution asked Manning if she had some concern about defense investigators learning where she lived, and whether she felt harassed by the defense investigators during the trial. Manning answered, His investigator. I mean, yeah, by his investigator. Defendant now argues that whether or not Manning felt harassed was irrelevant and the prosecution's questions suggested without foundation that defendant had attempted to threaten Manning. (20) The trial court did not err in allowing the prosecution to ask these questions of Manning on redirect examination. `It is well settled that when a witness is questioned on cross-examination as to matters relevant to the subject of the direct examination but not elicited on that examination, he [or she] may be examined on redirect as to such new matter.' ( People v. Steele (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1230, 1247-1248 [120 Cal.Rptr.2d 432, 47 P.3d 225].) `The extent of the redirect examination of a witness is largely within the discretion of the trial court.' ( Id. at p. 1247.) Where, as here, one side presents evidence on a point, then tries to prevent the other side from responding, trial courts should strive to prevent unfairness to either side. ( Id. at p. 1248.) Defendant acknowledges that Manning opened the door to the subject of harassment by defense investigators during her cross-examination, but nonetheless argues the subject was irrelevant and immaterial because Manning's state of mind at the time of her interview with the defense investigator was not at issue. He argues the trial court should not have allowed the prosecution to capitalize on defendant's error by eliciting further irrelevant evidence on redirect examination. We disagree. Manning's perception that the defense investigator harassed her is a factor that reasonably might have affected her willingness to cooperate with the defense investigation and thus her credibility. The inquiry was relevant on either direct or cross-examination. Further, any error in allowing the inquiry was nonprejudicial. Exploring the extent of the harassment Manning felt the defense investigator inflicted might, in fact, have benefited defendant.