P v. CHATMAN
Filed 5/8/06
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
)
v. )
Defendant and Appellant. ) Super. Ct. No. 143749
___________ )
Story Continued from Part II……..
Belmontes (1988) 45 Cal.3d 744, 780.) Thus, unless the defendant can show that the prohibited cross-examination would have produced ‘a significantly different impression of [the witnesses'] credibility' (Van Arsdall, supra, 475 U.S. at p. 680), the trial court's exercise of its discretion in this regard does not violate the Sixth Amendment.†(People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 946 (Frye).) We examine defendant's specific contentions in this legal context.
a. Yvonne's Welfare History
Based on Yvonne's welfare records, defendant asserted that she had committed perjury. She received welfare while working and living with defendant, but falsely represented under oath to the contrary. Although Yvonne had never been charged with such an offense, he sought to confront her with this evidence. The court excluded the inquiry to the extent defendant offered it as general impeachment. It indicated, however, that the evidence might be admissible if defendant could show that when talking to police Yvonne might have been concerned about being prosecuted for welfare fraud. It offered to hold an in limine hearing, but none was requested. Evidence Code section 352 â€
