Opinion ID: 844286
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cross-examination on Ivan’s Defense

Text: Defendant asserts the prosecutor committed misconduct when cross-examining her regarding a letter in which Ivan tried to persuade her to fire her attorney. At the end of this letter, Ivan had drawn a diagram of a face labeled ―me‖ with a finger pointing to it, below the statement ―if it comes down to it.‖ Defendant maintained the position she had taken on direct examination, that the letter reflected Ivan‘s attempt to control her, and the diagram referred to his practice of using his finger for sexual purposes. The following exchange occurred: ―Q: Well, you knew that Ivan Gonzales claimed he was a battered man, didn‘t you? ―A : He never testified to that; no, I didn‘t. ―Q: He didn‘t testify to it, but he claimed that, didn‘t he?‖ Defense counsel objected, on the ground that the question had been asked and answered. The court sustained the objection ―on the grounds that we shouldn‘t go through with that line.‖ Nevertheless, the prosecutor proceeded to ask defendant, ―well, 27 were you aware that that was his defense?‖ Defense counsel objected and asked for a sidebar conference. The court agreed. Out of the jury‘s presence, the court noted that ―we‘ve tried to stay away from what happened at Ivan‘s trial altogether, and this is asking about what happened at Ivan‘s trial.‖ The court also pointed out that ―Ivan, as far as I know, didn‘t do anything but enter a plea of not guilty and deny the special circumstances. All the things that she might answer about are things his attorneys did . . . I‘m not so sure I see how relevant that is.‖ The prosecutor explained that he was trying to dispute defendant‘s claim that Ivan was manipulating her. The court noted that defendant‘s attempt to characterize the drawing as anything other than an invitation to cast blame on Ivan was weak, and did not justify drawing the jury‘s attention to what Ivan‘s position at his trial had been. It stated: ―I‘m inclined to sustain the objection and to find that we ought to stay away from anything about what happened at Ivan‘s trial.‖ Defense counsel moved for a mistrial, arguing that the prosecutor had created the impression that the battered spouse defense was ―bogus‖ because Ivan as well as defendant had asserted it. Counsel noted that Ivan in fact raised no such defense at his trial. If a mistrial were denied, counsel asked the court to permit him to introduce statements Ivan had made in his interviews with the police, admitting that he had put Genny in the bath. The court denied the motion for a mistrial, and agreed to consider remedial measures at a later time. It granted defense counsel‘s request for an admonition telling the jury not to consider counsel‘s questions as evidence, and in particular not to consider the question when an objection was sustained. At the next break in the proceedings, the court brought up the question of how the defense might respond to the prosecutor‘s questions, suggesting that perhaps on redirect the defendant could testify she was unaware of any attempt by Ivan to blame her for what happened to Genny. Defense counsel noted that Ivan‘s defense was indeed that defendant was responsible for what happened, although Ivan himself never directly 28 blamed her. In any event, counsel declined the court‘s invitation to explore defendant‘s knowledge on this subject, saying it would open ―more cans of worms.‖11 Defendant argues that the prosecutor committed intentional misconduct by questioning her about Ivan‘s battered spouse defense. ―The standards governing review of misconduct claims are settled. ‗A prosecutor who uses deceptive or reprehensible methods to persuade the jury commits misconduct, and such actions require reversal under the federal Constitution when they infect the trial with such ― ‗unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.‘ ‖ [Citations.] Under state law, a prosecutor who uses such methods commits misconduct even when those actions do not result in a fundamentally unfair trial.‘ [Citation.] ‗In order to preserve a claim of misconduct, a defendant must make a timely objection and request an admonition; only if an admonition would not have cured the harm is the claim of misconduct preserved for review.‘ [Citation.] When a claim of misconduct is based on the prosecutor‘s comments before the jury, ‗ ―the question is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury construed or applied any of the complained-of remarks in an objectionable fashion.‖ ‘ [Citations.]‖ (People v. Friend (2009) 47 Cal.4th 1, 29.) Here, defendant did not object on grounds of misconduct, and the court did admonish the jury to disregard the prosecutor‘s questions. In any event, while it was improper for the prosecutor to persist with his line of questioning after the court sustained an objection, this conduct did not amount to the kind of ― ‗deceptive or reprehensible‘ ‖ tactic that rises to the level of prosecutorial misconduct. (People v. Friend, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 29.) On direct examination, defendant had offered her interpretation of Ivan‘s letter as an example of his continuing efforts to dominate and control her. A claim 11 Counsel pressed his argument that he should be allowed to present Ivan‘s incriminating statements, but the court declined to hear the argument at that time. Later in the trial, defense counsel reminded the court that it had not ruled on this point. The court heard from both sides, and decided that no door had been opened to bring in Ivan‘s statements. We discuss the admissibility of these statements post, in part II.A.1.d. 29 by Ivan that he was battered by defendant would have tended to rebut that theory. There was at least some factual basis for the prosecutor‘s suggestion. Defendant had been present in pretrial proceedings when Ivan‘s attorney announced his intent to employ a battered spouse defense, though ultimately he decided not to. While the question positing ―that was his defense‖ was misleading, there was no opportunity to clarify the issue because an objection was sustained. The jury was reminded that statements in the attorneys‘ questions were not evidence. Defense counsel did not ask the court to inform the jury that Ivan did not actually claim that he was a battered spouse. Defendant contends the court erred when it denied her request for a mistrial. We disagree. ―In reviewing rulings on motions for mistrial, we apply the deferential abuse of discretion standard. [Citation.] ‗A mistrial should be granted if the court is apprised of prejudice that it judges incurable by admonition or instruction. [Citation.] Whether a particular incident is incurably prejudicial is by its nature a speculative matter, and the trial court is vested with considerable discretion in ruling on mistrial motions. [Citation.]‘ [Citation.]‖ (People v. Wallace (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1032, 1068.) Here, the court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that an admonition was sufficient to cure any prejudice stemming from the prosecutor‘s questions.