Opinion ID: 1133414
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Miscellaneous claims of trial court error

Text: Defendant contends the trial court erred in allowing the prosecutor to pursue a number of irrelevant and collateral matters, to ask numerous argumentative questions, and to introduce a recently made video of the neighborhood where defendant's girlfriend, Virginia MacNair, lived. He also complains he was subjected to unequal treatment when the trial court sustained the prosecutor's objection to a defense question while overruling a defense objection to a somewhat similar prosecution question. Other than broad references to fundamental fairness and heightened due process, defendant provides no legal authority, reasoning, or analysis to explain why any of these rulings was in error. Defendant did not object on any constitutional ground to these trial court rulings. Thus, his assertions that the rulings violated fundamental fairness or heightened due process are not preserved for appeal. ( People v. Hines, supra, 15 Cal.4th 997, 1035, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 594, 938 P.2d 388.) Moreover, as noted earlier, we need not consider on appeal mere contentions of error unaccompanied by legal argument. ( People v. Barnett, supra, 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1182, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121, 954 P.2d 384; People v. Gordon, supra, 50 Cal.3d 1223, 1244, fn. 3, 270 Cal.Rptr. 451, 792 P.2d 251; People v. Bonin, supra, 47 Cal.3d 808, 857, fn. 6, 254 Cal.Rptr. 298, 765 P.2d 460.)