X hits on this document

533 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

50 / 115

defendant of his constitutional rights to confront witnesses, to effective assistance of counsel, or to a reliable penalty determination.

XV.  Denial of Motion to Strike Portion of Defendant’s Cross-examination

On cross-examination of defendant, the prosecutor asked whether “People’s 6, the bubble shield” had been stolen from defendant’s apartment building along with his blue helmet.  Defendant answered that it had.  On redirect, defendant said he had not heard the prosecutor ask him about exhibit 6, the bubble shield introduced at trial; rather, his answer related to the bubble shield he had purchased to use with his helmet.

Later, defense counsel moved to strike the portion of defendant’s crossexamination in which he had answered that exhibit 6 had been stolen from him.  Counsel represented that the prosecutor had said that eliciting that answer had been “inadvertent.”  Asked to confirm this, the prosecutor stated that he had said that “from the context, it was clear that we were talking about the bubble shield that he said that he had purchased.”  The court denied the motion to strike.  

Defendant argues the cross-examination should have been stricken, and the jury told not to consider it, because the prosecutor’s questioning regarding exhibit 6 was inadvertent.  Inadvertently or not, however, the question did elicit the admission from defendant that he had previously had possession of exhibit 6, on which his fingerprint was found and which was found on a Pasadena street shortly after Koll’s death.  Although the prosecutor was apparently unaware he was asking this, and thought he was simply reviewing defendant’s direct testimony with regard to a bubble shield he had owned, defendant’s answer was responsive to the question asked.  Defendant cites no provision of the Evidence Code limiting

Document info
Document views533
Page views533
Page last viewedFri Jan 20 07:01:08 UTC 2017
Pages115
Paragraphs595
Words35484

Comments