Opinion ID: 2588259
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Comments on Todd Babbitt's Bench Warrant

Text: Todd Babbitt, a friend of defendant's, testified at trial as a prosecution witness. He stated that one day in mid-September, alluding to the $3,000 to $4,000 in cash that Smith and Balestri kept in their room, defendant jokingly said: I ought to just tie him [Smith] up and take their money and his dope. Babbitt mentioned this remark to the police some hours after they told him about the attack on Smith and Balestri. Seeking to defuse a defense attack on Babbitt's motivation for testifying, the prosecutor brought out on direct examination that in 1990 Babbitt had pled guilty to driving under the influence, that the case was still pending, and that he had an outstanding bench warrant for failure to appear. When Babbitt explained that he just couldn't make it to court because [he] was up in Washington, the trial court commented: You're going to make a misdemeanor a federal offense if you don't take care of it. When Babbitt admitted that he had a fine of $1,200 outstanding, the court interjected: That's right. You don't pay, you go to jail. The defense did not object to the court's comments. Defendant now contends that the trial court's comments were gratuitous and inappropriate because they conveyed an argument favorable to the prosecution, and that the court's comment undercut defendant's effort to impeach Babbitt. Defendant contends the error requires reversal because Babbitt's testimony was crucial to the prosecution's theory that defendant committed his attacks on Smith and Balestri to facilitate his planned robbery of them. We determine the propriety of judicial comment on a case-by-case basis in light of its content and the circumstances in which it occurs. ( People v. Sanders (1995) 11 Cal.4th 475, 531-532, 46 Cal. Rptr.2d 751, 905 P.2d 420.) To preserve the issue for review, a defendant must make a timely objection. ( Id. at p. 531, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 751, 905 P.2d 420.) Defendant here did not object at trial, but he contends that any objection would have been futile or an admonition ineffective to cure the error. ( People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 159, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 770, 913 P.2d 980.) He argues that an objection to the court's facetious federal case comment would have been counterproductive because the court might have ridiculed the defense for objecting, or, if the court agreed to admonish the jury, an admonition might have made the defense appear foolish in suggesting that a relatively trivial benefit to Babbitt would tempt him to fabricate or exaggerate such damning evidence. Defendant characterizes the trial court's tone as one of good-natured admonishment and mock judicial severity. Whatever that tone may have been, the court simply advised Babbitt to resolve the matter of the outstanding warrant and to pay the $1,200 fine or face time in jail. Neither comment was improper. Assuming, however, that the court's tone deprecated the seriousness of Babbitt's motive to exaggerate or fabricate, an admonition would have cured any error. Defendant sought no such curative admonition, and therefore he has forfeited any claim of error. Defendant further argues that had the trial court not demeaned defense counsel's efforts to impeach Babbitt, the jury would likely have disbelieved Babbitt's testimony about defendant's plan to rob Smith. Not so. It was undisputed that during the afternoon interview with police, when Babbitt learned of Smith's murder, Babbitt did not mention defendant's earlier statement about tying up Smith. Babbitt did, however, call the police to report that remark some three hours later. It was also undisputed that Babbitt's outstanding warrant stemmed from an offense committed some five years after the murder. Accordingly, whatever motive Babbitt may have had at the time of trial to testify in a manner favorable to the prosecution, his testimony at trial was apparently consistent with his statement at the time of the murder. In these circumstances, the trial court's comments cannot have been prejudicial to defendant under any test.