Opinion ID: 2545785
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reference to Defendant's Invocation of the Right to Remain Silent

Text: As previously explained (see issue H.A., ante ), when defendant called Lieutenant Ross Dvorak to testify regarding defendant's demeanor during interrogation, Dvorak mentioned that defendant had ended the interrogation by invoking his right to counsel. Defendant argues that Lieutenant Dvorak's reference to defendant's invocation of his rights constituted misconduct by the prosecutor. (See Doyle v. Ohio, supra, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 [prosecutor's cross-examination of a defendant about his invocation of Miranda rights violated due process].) We disagree. The record contains no evidence that the prosecutor was in any way responsible for Dvorak's comment. Defendant points out that a prosecutor must guard against statements by his witnesses containing inadmissible evidence ( People v. Warren (1988) 45 Cal.3d 471, 481, 247 Cal.Rptr. 172, 754 P.2d 218, italics added), and a prosecutor who believes that a prosecution witness may mention an inadmissible matter must warn the witness to refrain from making such a statement ( id. at p. 482, 247 Cal.Rptr. 172, 754 P.2d 218). This obligation arises when the witnesses are called by the prosecution. Here, the defense, not the prosecution, called Dvorak to testify. Defendant also asserts that Lieutenant Dvorak committed misconduct by mentioning defendant's invocation of his right to counsel during interrogation. Any possibility of prejudice was negated when the trial court struck the testimony and told the jury to disregard it.