Opinion ID: 2514469
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The complainant's testimony

Text: Trial commenced on August 29, 2005. After giving its opening statement, the prosecution called the complainant as its first witness. On direct examination, she testified that, when Carlut awoke from his nap on April 15, 2005, she told him that she was upset that he would not allow her son to enter the house while she was living there. Carlut did not respond. The complainant declared that she was leaving. Carlut similarly told her to leave, but, at that point, she changed her mind and no longer wanted to leave. Carlut took her house key from her, which prompted her to scream in frustration. Carlut responded by slapping her on the left side of her face with an open hand. The complainant testified that she never gave Carlut permission to slap her in the face. When asked about her VVS form, the complainant stated that she did not adopt the form as her statement and asserted her fifth-amendment right against self-incrimination. When asked whether the statements on the form were different from what she had related to the officer who prepared the form, the complainant again asserted her right against self-incrimination. On cross-examination, Carlut's counsel, Aluli, asked the complainant whether she had lied to the police. In response, the complainant asserted her right against self-incrimination. Aluli also asked the complainant whether she previously had a conversation with the DPA, Tate, to which Tate objected on relevancy grounds. In a bench conference, the following discussion ensued amongst the family court, Tate, and Aluli: THE COURT: Mr. Tate, I am going to allow some leeway with [the complainant]. Mr. Aluli has a good faith basis, as he has been saying throughout this case, to assert that there has been a conversation. Now, Counsel, in the previous motions in limine, I ordered that Mr. Tate's statement was privileged. In fact, Judge Loo ordered or ruled on that. Remember that ruling? So I am asking you not to go into that area. Okay? MR. ALULI: Well  THE COURT: That's already been ruled on by the Court. Okay? MR. ALULI: That I am not entitled to any work product? THE COURT: Statement. MR. ALULI: Recorded statements? THE COURT: That is correct. MR. ALULI: But I am entitled to get into the substance of the statements, because Mr. Tate already told me what this witness had told him. So  THE COURT: Do not make yourself a witness, Mr. Aluli. Do not make yourself a witness. I will have to do this case all over again. Because that was why we did the Motion in Limine, Counsel. You have other areas you can impeach this witness on. Okay. And you are going after the investigator, at the police reports, now you are going to go after the person trying the case. I am just giving you fair warning to stay away from that area. MR. ALULI: Well, Judge, I have raised the issue with my motion. I told the Court that I had subpoenaed  THE COURT: I know. I ruled on that. MR. ALULI: But, Judge, I think I am entitled with respect to any impeachment material to get before the jury. That's  Mr. Tate himself  THE COURT: What are you going to use, your conversation with Mr. Tate? MR. ALULI: Absolutely not. THE COURT: What other  you didn't get any documents, so what else do you have? MR. ALULI: I am using this witness'[s] conversation with Mr. Tate where she had admitted certain things were not true. And I want to believe the jury  THE COURT: How are you going to impeach that, Counsel? That's my question. MR. ALULI: I have a good faith basis to ask her that. THE COURT: With what? What are you going to use[] to impeach her? You have the investigator's statement? MR. ALULI: I am first, Judge  THE COURT: Are you going to use Mr. Tate to impeach her? MR. ALULI: I told you, Judge, that I am entitled to  THE COURT: You will not call Mr. Tate[;] he will not be a witness in this case. I ruled on that earlier. MR. ALULI: Your ruling, Judge, in my view, precludes effective cross-examination. THE COURT: Maybe to you, Counsel. And that's a point to take up on appeal if this has to go that way. But you are not going to call him as a witness in this case. MR. ALULI: All right, Judge. THE COURT: Thank you. After the bench conference, the family court did not rule on the prosecution's initial relevancy objection to Carlut's question whether the complainant had had a conversation with Tate. Instead, the family court informed Aluli that he could continue. Aluli responded by asking the court if it was time for a break. The family court explained that, because the trial had only been in session for less than fifty minutes, the court would recess after an hour. Again, the family court informed Aluli that he could continue, to which he responded that the defense had no further questions.