Opinion ID: 2520047
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Allegedly Improper Rebuttal Evidence

Text: Several defense witnesses, including defendant's sister Victoria Valdez (Victoria), testified that defendant was a nonviolent person and that it was difficult for them to believe that he was capable of killing another person. On cross-examination of Victoria, the following colloquy occurred: [Prosecutor]: And you tell us that your brother is not a violent man; is that correct? [Victoria]: Not in front of us he's not. [Prosecutor]: Have you ever seen your brother with a weapon, like a gun? [Victoria]: No, never. [Prosecutor]: And it would be your opinion that your brother never had guns, never touched guns. Is that pretty good? [Victoria]: I guess that's pretty good. I have never seen him with a gun. [Prosecutor]: Would you be really surprised if your brother hung around and had  somewhere and had guns? [Victoria]: Yes, I would be surprised. At this point, the prosecutor showed Victoria two photographs, one of defendant posing with a long gun and making hand gestures and the other of defendant and another person holding the gun. The prosecutor then asked Victoria: So this is a picture of your yard area with him doing something with his hands? Do you see what's he doing with his hand there? Can you tell? Victoria responded, He's going like this (motioning). The prosecutor elaborated: Doing something with his hands, okay. Defense counsel did not object to this questioning. When the prosecution later sought to introduce the photographs into evidence, defense counsel objected, but objected only to the one photograph depicting signing[, the] gang signing. The following exchange then took place outside the presence of the jury: [Prosecutor]: There was no testimony about the gang signs. [Defense counsel]: I know, but that doesn't mean that you're not going to argue  [Prosecutor]: I'm not going to argue gang signs. I can't. There's no evidence.... [¶] Also, I have a good faith belief that that's not a recognized gang sign. Every gang sign expert I talk to says he made this up. [Defense counsel]: If that's the case  [Prosecutor]: I'm not going to argue that. As a result of the prosecutor's assurance that she did not intend to make an argument regarding gang signs, the court admitted the photographs, stating that they would be received into evidence because the people will not argue that issue of whether or not they're flashing a gang sign. Defendant argues on appeal that his constitutional rights to a fair trial and reliable penalty determination were violated by the admission of the photographs and the prosecutor's cross-examination of defendant's sister relating to the gun and the hand gestures. Because defendant did not object at trial, he may not now complain on appeal about the prosecutor's cross-examination. ( People v. Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353, 453, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 408, 966 P.2d 442 [Defendant was required to object to the improper question so that the court could admonish the jury to disregard it and the answer. He did not, and has waived his claim.].) Even if this claim was not forfeited, the questioning was within proper bounds. The prosecution was permitted to counter the defense witnesses' portrayal of defendant. Testimony regarding the gun countered testimony that defendant could not have committed the crime he was found guilty of, and that Victoria, who lived with her brother when the photograph was taken, had never before seen him with a gun. It also pointed out that Victoria may have been unaware of her brother's activities. The prosecutor's inquiry into the hand gestures, although questionable as to its relevance, was not prejudicial. While the prosecutor subsequently informed the court and defense counsel that she did not think the gestures were authentic gang signs, she may have believed that defendant's sister may have had another insight. Whether or not this was the case is not important since the reference to the hand gestures was too fleeting to be prejudicial. The admission of the photographs into evidence was also permissible because defense counsel implicitly withdrew his objection. As noted above, defense counsel objected when the prosecutor first sought their admission, but only to the one photograph showing the hand gestures. However, defense counsel, was concerned not with the admission of the photograph per se, but only with its admission in conjunction with a prosecution argument to the jury regarding gang signs. After the prosecutor assured defense counsel that she was not going to so argue, he stated, If that's the case  at which time he was cut off by the prosecutor who reassured him that she was not going to make an argument respecting gang signs. A reading of this testimony reveals that defense counsel was only concerned about a subsequent argument by the prosecutor regarding gang signs. Because he was assured that no such argument would take place, he did not object to the admission of the photograph. Finally, we note there was never any testimony relating to gang membership or any mention of the word gang. We conclude defendant's constitutional rights were not violated by this testimony and the admission of the photographs into evidence.