Opinion ID: 2518032
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Use of Leading Questions in Cross-examination of Sergio Zamora

Text: Defendant contends the trial court committed reversible error in allowing the prosecutor to ask leading questions at several points during Sergio Zamora's direct and redirect examination. [12] He contends that by using leading questions, the prosecutor essentially testified for Zamora, who was not credible. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the leading questions. (8) `A leading question is a question that suggests to the witness the answer that the examining party desires.' (Evid. Code, § 764.) Questions calling for a `yes' or `no' answer are not leading unless they are unduly suggestive under the circumstances. ( People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 635, 672 [66 Cal.Rptr.2d 573, 941 P.2d 752]; 3 Witkin, Cal. Evidence (4th ed. 2000) Presentation at Trial, § 165, pp. 229-230.) Furthermore, leading questions are not always impermissible on direct examination. `Evidence Code section 767, subdivision (a)(1), provides that leading questions may not be asked of a witness on direct or redirect examination except in special circumstances where the interests of justice otherwise require. Trial courts have broad discretion to decide when such special circumstances are present. [Citations.]' ( Williams, at p. 672.) ( People v. Harris, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 1285.) Zamora testified that he originally lied to police, telling them that a homeboy admitted the killing. Zamora explained that he lied because he was afraid of defendant and because of his own involvement in the driveby shooting. The prosecutor then asked, Now do you remember anything else that [defendant] told you about the killing of this man? Zamora said no, but acknowledged meeting with the prosecutor and Detective Castillo several days before his trial testimony. The prosecutor then asked, Do you remember saying you had forgotten to tell us something because you were scared and now you want to tell us something else? Defendant's leading objection was overruled and Zamora answered yes, but said he forgot what he told them. The prosecutor then asked, Do you remember telling us anything about what the defendant told you about the person in Los Angeles that he killed? Zamora answered, He just killed somebody up in L.A. The prosecutor then asked, What else? The court overruled defendant's objection that the question assumed facts not in evidence. The prosecutor then asked, Did you tell us that he told you the guy was going to get something to eat, was on his way to lunch? When Zamora said yes, the prosecutor asked, Do you remember telling us that he then grabbed him and put him in the car and took him to the bank and got 100 or 200 dollars? Zamora replied yes. Defendant objected to these latter two questions as leading and the trial court overruled those objections. (9) Leading questions are permitted on direct examination to the extent necessary to stimulate or revive [the witness's] recollection. (3 Witkin, Cal. Evidence, supra, Presentation at Trial § 167, p. 231; see People v. Williams, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 672.) Zamora stated he could not remember the conversation he had with Detective Castillo and the prosecutor. When the prosecutor attempted to refresh his recollection, he claimed only a limited recall. Under these circumstances, the court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the two leading questions that followed in order to revive Zamora's recollection. Furthermore, it appears Zamora's answers would have qualified as prior inconsistent statements under Evidence Code sections 770 and 1235. Zamora claimed he had forgotten statements made only a few days before. The trial court later described Zamora as reluctant to answer in this portion of his testimony, suggesting Zamora was evasive rather than truly forgetful. A claimed lack of memory can give rise to an implied inconsistency. ( People v. Hovarter (2008) 44 Cal.4th 983, 1008 [81 Cal.Rptr.3d 299, 189 P.3d 300]; People v. Ervin (2000) 22 Cal.4th 48, 84-85 [91 Cal.Rptr.2d 623, 990 P.2d 506].) Under these circumstances, the trial court would not have abused its discretion in allowing the prosecutor to lay the foundation for the inconsistent statement through leading questions. Detective Castillo later testified regarding the meeting with the prosecutor and Zamora and confirmed that Zamora made the statements elicited in the prosecutor's examination. Defendant next complains about leading questions during the prosecutor's redirect examination of Zamora. Zamora admitted on cross-examination that at one point he told Detective Castillo defendant said nothing about killing anyone. Defense counsel also challenged Zamora's credibility by asking whether anyone told him what to say at trial; how much time he spent talking with the prosecution about his testimony; and whether he talked to the other Bakersfield witnesses during the trial. Counsel asked whether Zamora was testifying based on information in police reports rather than his own recollection. On redirect, the prosecutor affirmed Zamora's earlier interview statement that defendant admitted the killing. She quoted a question by Detective Castillo asking why defendant killed the victim, then asked Zamora, Do you remember your answer, `to get his money?' When Zamora answered yes, she quoted Castillo's next question, `And [what else]?' and quoted Zamora's next answer: `And his wallet and his credit cards.' The prosecutor then asked, Is that true? After Zamora said yes, defense counsel interposed a leading objection, which the court overruled. The prosecutor continued quoting from the transcript, asking Zamora whether he remembered telling Castillo that defendant also killed the victim so he could get his car. The prosecutor also quoted Castillo's question as to why Zamora did not provide this information initially. She quoted Zamora's answer that he feared defendant, and asked, Do you remember that? Zamora answered yes, after which defense counsel objected that the question was leading. The court overruled the objection. The quoted portions of the interview, considered in context, were admissible as prior consistent statements under Evidence Code sections 791 and 1236. The prosecutor's use of do you remember and is it true questions were not leading. Questions calling for a `yes' or `no' answer are not leading unless they are unduly suggestive under the circumstances. ( People v. Harris, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 1285.) Here, the prosecutor was quoting from a transcript of Zamora's own statement, making improper suggestion unlikely. [13] If Zamora claimed he could not remember the answers, the prosecutor could have attempted to refresh his recollection by showing him the transcript. If Zamora denied making the statement, Detective Castillo could have been called to impeach his testimony. Zamora testified on direct examination that defendant said only that he shot the victim. The prosecutor showed Zamora his preliminary hearing testimony and asked whether he testified previously that defendant admitted shooting the victim in the head. Zamora claimed that he had lied at the preliminary hearing and that he did not remember defendant making the statement. On redirect examination, the prosecutor again asked Zamora if he ever heard defendant say he shot the victim in the head. Zamora said yes. The prosecutor then directed Zamora to read two pages of his preliminary hearing testimony and asked, Do you remember a little bit better now about that? and Zamora said yes. The prosecutor said, Now, you remember that the other lawyer asked you the following questions, after which the prosecutor read a question asked at the preliminary hearing. Defense counsel interposed a nonspecific objection and then asked that the court note a continuing objection to these questions, please. When defense counsel attempted to state the grounds for his objection, the court interrupted him and stated, 791 and 770, I believe, are both applicable of the Evidence Code. The prosecutor continued by reading the defense attorney's questions and Zamora's answers, each time asking Zamora whether he remembered giving those answers. In the quoted exchange, Zamora told defense counsel that the preliminary hearing was the first occasion during which Zamora had related defendant's statement that he shot someone in the head, and that Zamora was told this information by defendant. (10) Defendant argues, as he did with the interview transcript, that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecutor to ask leading questions. It is not uncommon for advocates to confuse an attempt to refresh recollection with impeachment. Here the prosecutor inartfully treated her redirect questions as refreshing recollection when she was actually confronting Zamora with his prior testimony that contradicted his statements during direct examination. When impeaching a witness a questioner may be permitted to confront with leading questions. The court did not abuse its discretion in permitting such questions here.