Opinion ID: 1351510
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Trial Court Comment on Testimony of Defendant's Mother

Text: While questioning defendant's mother at the penalty phase, defense counsel elicited the information that defendant's sister is stable, employed, and never had any trouble with the law. He then asked, How do you account for the fact that Bronte and his sister have the same upbringing, suffered similar beatings, things of that nature, yet Bronte is in the position he is in and your daughter has never even had a problem with the law? The prosecution objected, arguing lack of foundation and that the question called for speculation. The trial court sustained the objection and commented: Well, I think that's a problem ... which society has been trying to solve for ages. [¶] I don't think that this mother's opinion would be of any greater value than any other mother's opinion. [¶] Why does one son become a doctor and the other a bum? [¶] If we knew that, we would be a lot further than we are now. Defendant argues the court's comment prejudiced the jury against him by characterizing him as a bum and belittling his mother's ability to accurately answer the question posed. However, the failure to object waived any claim of error on appeal. ( People v. Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 27.) Defendant concedes there was no objection but claims an objection would have been futile. We disagree. Read in context, the court's comment was rhetorical; the judge was not suggesting he believed defendant was a bum any more so than he believed defendant's mother had a son who became a doctor. Had counsel objected and sought an appropriate curative admonition, such would have undoubtedly been forthcoming. Nor has defendant offered anything further to substantiate his alternative claim that the failure to object to the court's generalized comment constituted prejudicial ineffective assistance of counsel. Lastly, defendant argues the trial court erred in sustaining the prosecutor's objection that counsel's question to defendant's mother lacked foundation and called for speculation. Assuming arguendo any error, it was clearly nonprejudicial. Wilson ultimately described defendant's difficult childhood and upbringing to the jury in considerable detail. She was permitted to testify that in her opinion defendant was very immature, that he had the mentality of a 13-year-old, that her son's incarceration in the California Youth Authority was merely custodial, that as far as she was concerned no real attempt was ever made to rehabilitate him, and that in her opinion defendant did not have a violent or explosive temper and was not a dangerous individual.