Opinion ID: 2570148
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Leland Loker

Text: Leland Loker was another second cousin who had known defendant all his life. He testified that defendant lacked self-confidence and was not accepted by some people in his family and church, but was pretty much . . . happy-go-lucky. He dealt with rejection by pretending it never happened. Leland said that on one occasion, defendant was extremely upset when he ran over a cat on the way to work. He described defendant as neat and orderly, and said he's always been a perfect gentleman. On cross-examination, the prosecutor said he did not intend to cause Leland or any other family member pain, but I have to ask you to take a look at these things to see whether or not it's a different Keith Loker than you know. Whether you're aware of that side of him. Defense counsel objected that the prosecutor was improperly characterizing the report. The court sustained the objection, and told the jury: Again, ladies and gentlemen, you're reminded that the statements of counsel, including their questions, are not evidence . . . the only thing that you can consider as evidence is the actual testimony of witnesses. [¶] And as I indicated to you . . . if there are matters in this report that [the prosecutor] has referred to that are relevant, then I would assume that there will be some testimony from a witness about those areas. If there is not any testimony from a witness as to the statements [defendant] is alleged to have made in this report, then again you're instructed not to speculate as to what it was that might have been in there or why it wasn't presented to you. [¶] And not to consider it for any purpose except if witnesses indicate that they are aware of certain things or not aware of certain things. Then, of course, you can consider the witness' testimony in that regard as demonstrating either the extent or lack of extent of their knowledge of certain items. The prosecutor requested a bench conference, and objected that the court had excluded portions of the report it deemed overly prejudicial, so he would be unable to present all the relevant matters to the jury. The court said, [t]he problem is when the question directly states that here's a report that shows a very different side of the defendant, read it and tell me if you were aware of this side of the defendant, and then there's no evidence put on as to what was in the report, it clearly communicates to the jury that there's all this other evidence that shows a very different side of the defendant but we're not going to tell you what it is. The court advised the prosecutor to simply ask the witness to read the report and see whether he was familiar with the information in it, but not to embellish and state as a fact that it shows a completely different side of the defendant. The prosecutor also objected that the defense witnesses were testifying broadly about defendant's good character, and asked the court to reconsider its ruling limiting the use of the report. Defense counsel responded that the witnesses were volunteering those statements, and his attempts to restrain them had been unsuccessful. The court said it would be willing to reconsider its ruling, but not as to this witness. It denied the prosecutor's request to modify the admonition it had just given the jury. The prosecutor asked Leland to look at the Gaughan report and see if he was aware of any of the things defendant said in it. Leland said he would rather not, adding, I'd just as soon remember [defendant] the way he was to me. The prosecutor said he would respect that. Leland agreed that his opinions about defendant were based only on his personal observations. The court's comments on this occasion demonstrate its awareness of the problems created by the prosecutor's repeated references to the Gaughan report. The court properly sustained defense counsel's objection and admonished the jury. Again, however, the impropriety of the prosecutor's general approach is clear. While Leland, like Salisbury, testified so generally about defendant's good character that a broad scope of rebuttal was permissible, vague statements from the prosecutor about another side of defendant were not helpful to the jury. Similarly, the fact that Leland or any other witness was unaware of unspecified incidents in the report was simply irrelevant to the jury's deliberations.