Opinion ID: 2570148
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Shari Johnson

Text: Johnson, defendant's sister-in-law, testified that she was aware of defendant's deep-seated problems. She mentioned his attraction to pornography, his mood swings, and his insecurities about finding a girlfriend. She had told Marietta that he needed counseling, but Marietta rejected the idea. Defense counsel objected when the prosecutor said he wanted Johnson to look at the Gaughan report. While the jury was excused for a break, counsel argued again that the report was irrelevant and improper for use in rebuttal. He noted that Johnson's testimony about defendant's problems created no distortion or inaccuracy. The court, however, ruled that the direct testimony regarding various aspects of [defendant's] personality and character allowed the prosecution to inquire as to the extent of the witness's knowledge in those areas. The court stated that, as before, the prosecutor could ask if the witness was aware of the incidents described in the report, and she would relate those she was personally aware of, but not others, nor could the prosecutor explore those other areas. At defense counsel's request, the court told Johnson she did not have to read the report. Johnson did read the report, and said she was not personally aware of any of the incidents. She had learned about some of them from family members. When the prosecutor asked about what she had learned, the court sustained a hearsay objection. The prosecutor asked if he could have Johnson indicate on the report which incidents she had heard about. The court said that could be done after she completed her testimony. Again, the court erred by overruling defense counsel's objection. Counsel correctly noted that the report did not serve to rebut Johnson's testimony about defendant's problems. The court failed to perceive the distinction pointed out in Rodriguez : that any character evidence offered by the defense does not permit the prosecution to introduce any character evidence in rebuttal. [T]he scope of rebuttal must be specific, and evidence presented or argued as rebuttal must relate directly to a particular incident or character trait defendant offers in his own behalf. ( Rodriguez, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 792, fn. 24.)