X hits on this document





38 / 115

On cross-examination, defense counsel asked Mrs. Koll, “What kinds of narcotic items were kept in the safe?”  The court sustained the prosecutor’s relevance objection “because of the preliminary testimony by this witness that the safe was not disturbed.”

Defendant argues counsel’s question “directly pertained to the accuracy and completeness of the witness’s knowledge about the narcotics” and thus the answer would have affected her credibility “about whether, indeed, the safe had been ‘disturbed’ in that respect.”  But Mrs. Koll had testified that she compared the contents of the safe with written inventory records, not with her own memory of the narcotics kept therein.  Moreover, the trial here took place almost eight years after Koll was killed.  Mrs. Koll’s ability or inability, at that late date, to remember what particular drugs had been kept in the safe would not have had a tendency in reason to prove or disprove the accuracy of her inventory check.  The relevance objection was therefore properly sustained (Evid. Code, § 210), and none of defendant’s asserted rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution were infringed.

VII.  Cross-examination of Stephan Schliebe

Defendant contends that two rulings during the cross-examination of Stephan Schliebe, the prosecution’s paint comparison expert, deprived him of the rights of confrontation and effective assistance of counsel, his right to a reliable death verdict, and his right to present a defense.

In the first instance, defense counsel Maple was questioning Schliebe about his analysis of paint samples from the metal pole.  This exchange followed:

“Q:  Okay.  Now, can you tell me, sir, what the percentage of the zinc is?

“A:  No.  I didn’t do a quantitative analysis.

“Q:  If you were to do a quantitative analysis, how would you do that, sir?

Document info
Document views190
Page views190
Page last viewedMon Oct 24 02:11:29 UTC 2016