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 V ……..
And he, in answer to the question by counsel, was immediately supplying information relating that something happened on a different date. And that's not a spontaneous statement.†At this point, the witness said he had had contact with the family on two occasions, and he was able to distinguish between the two. Later, the prosecutor objected again and a hearing was held outside the presence of the jury. Eventually, the court overruled the prosecutor's hearsay objection, and the testimony continued.
Defendant contends the prosecutor's reference to the preliminary hearing transcript was improper. However, he did not request the jury be admonished to disregard the comments. The issue is not cognizable. An admonition could have cured any harm. The prosecutor never said that the alleged events did not happen, but only that they occurred on different days. The prosecutor's statement that there were two different incidents was not prejudicial. Indeed, the fact that police were called on two separate days would have added weight to defendant's claim that his father was a violent man.
On cross-examination, defendant was asked whether any of his father's siblings â€
