Opinion ID: 1275251
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Court Questioning.

Text: Annette May's testimony revealed certain intellectual limitations and difficulties in expressing herself. During her cross-examination, she stated she did not know the meaning of the terms perjury and under oath and did not know what happens if a witness fails to tell the truth under oath. The prosecutor suggested the court voir dire May on her understanding of her duty to tell the truth. Defense counsel joined in the suggestion, and requested voir dire be conducted outside the presence of the jury. The court did not respond to defense counsel's request, but proceeded immediately to voir dire the witness without excusing the jury. Although May exhibited confusion over some of the terms the court used, she acknowledged her understanding that upon being sworn by the clerk, the law required her to tell the truth and that a witness who lies under oath can be punished. The court denied the motion to disqualify May under Evidence Code section 701. [4] (11) On appeal, defendant acknowledges the trial court did not err in denying the motion to disqualify May. He urges, however, the trial court abused its discretion in failing to voir dire May outside the presence of the jury. Its failure to do so, he contends, surrounded May's testimony with an undeserved aura of credibility. As defendant implicitly concedes, whether to conduct voir dire outside the presence of the jury was a matter within the trial court's discretion. (Evid. Code, § 402, subd. (b) [the court may determine the admissibility of evidence outside the jury's presence, but in criminal cases the admissibility of a confession or admission by defendant shall be determined outside the jury's presence on any party's request].) Defendant fails to persuade us the trial court abused its discretion in not doing so in this instance. We see no possibility the jury might have understood the trial court's ruling that May was competent as a witness as placing on her a mantle of judicial approval, nor any way in which the defense might have been hindered in attacking her credibility. To avoid this very possibility, the trial court admonished the jury that a ruling that certain evidence was admissible in no way implied an endorsement of the witness's credibility or the weight to be given the testimony. Those matters, the court emphasized, were reserved to the jury.