Opinion ID: 2520047
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Eliciting Testimony Regarding Defendant's Custody

Text: Prior to Officer Maxwell's testimony, defendant requested that the court order Officer Maxwell not to reveal that he interviewed defendant while defendant was in custody. Without objection from the prosecution, the court granted the request. The court instructed the prosecutor to clean up the testimony and also directly informed Officer Maxwell: What we're just trying to do is keep the fact from the jury that at this stage of the proceedings the fact the defendant was incarcerated in state prison. Officer Maxwell replied, I have no problem with that. During the prosecution's direct examination of Officer Maxwell, the following colloquy took place: Q: Okay. Now did how did you start this interview? Did you  was it a question and answer? Was it a narrative? How did this interview  how was this interview conducted? A: I told him the case that I was investigating in regards to the homicide that occurred in the city of Pomona, and he  our first of the conversation was in regards to his prior contact with past investigators ... while he was at I believe Chino Institute.  (Italics added.) Defense counsel immediately asked to approach the bench and moved for a mistrial. Finding no intentional misconduct, the trial court denied the motion. [25] Defendant asserts on appeal that the prosecutor intentionally elicited the reference to Chino Institute in violation of the court's order, undermining the presumption of innocence because it revealed his custodial status to the jury. Preliminarily, we note that defendant has forfeited this claim because, although defense counsel objected to the testimony referring to Chino Institute, he rejected the trial court's offer to admonish the jury, stating: I'd rather you didn't do that. Just let it go. Don't say a word. (See Silva, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 373, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 93, 21 P.3d 769 [finding claim of prosecutorial misconduct forfeited because defendant after raising a timely objection, expressly declined the court's offer to admonish the jury.... Because an admonition would have cured any harm, the failure to request an admonition renders the claim of misconduct unreviewable].) The isolated reference to Chino Institute was not so grave that a curative instruction would not have mitigated any possible prejudice to defendant. ( See, e.g., Dennis, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 521, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 680, 950 P.2d 1035.) Even if this claim were not forfeited, we discern no misconduct on the part of the prosecutor. Although a prosecutor engages in misconduct by intentionally eliciting inadmissible testimony ( People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 960, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 243, 978 P.2d 1171), the record here reflects that the prosecutor did not intentionally solicit, and could not have anticipated, Officer's Maxwell's reference to Chino Institute. The prosecutor did not ask where Officer Maxwell interviewed defendant, but only how the interview was conducted. (See People v. Pinholster (1992) 1 Cal.4th 865, 943, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 765, 824 P.2d 571 [rejecting defendant's claim of prosecutorial misconduct relating to the prosecution's questioning of a witness regarding prison gangs because [t]here was neither an objection to this question nor a request for admonition, nor do we see any indication that the prosecutor asked the question for the purpose of eliciting an improper answer. [Citations.]]; id. at pp. 964-965, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 765, 824 P.2d 571 [there is no indication the prosecutor purposely elicited the [complained of] responses; rather she was pursuing legitimate lines of inquiry.].)