CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Method of Exam: Cross-Exam
......Scope of Examination
.........Opening the Door
16 Cards On This Topic:

D forfeited his claim the court restricted his cross-exam. of W as to whether she bartered drugs for stolen property because it was co-D, not D, who sought to question her and D did not join in.

No error in a allowing DA to cross-examine D on sexual infidelity to his girlfriend where testimony by D and his expert had placed in issue his feelings about GF, including his belief they had a good relationship and family life.

Harmless error to allow DA at penalty phase to cross-examine defense Ws about D's psychiatric report; when D opens door, scope of rebuttal must be specific and relate directly to character trait D offered.

Trial court's striking question and answer from DA's cross-exam of defense expert, on DA's request, was harmless error as jury fully informed on issue, via taped confession and expert testimony.

Officer's testimony on cross as to V's hospital statements, inconsistent with prelim. testimony, properly admitted where D raised issue and it was not beyond scope of direct.

Trial court's implicit ruling that D's direct exam. response denying he ever wanted to kill V "or anybody else" did not "open the door" to questioning about second murder was harmless error.

Once defense raised question of D's mental state on direct exam of pathologist, DA entitled to continue line of questioning.

By asking O about what he learned from D's statements in office interview, to which court had sustained Miranda objection, defense counsel opened the door to redirect on same subject.

Once D takes stand and testifies to circumstances of charged offenses, DA on cross-examination is permitted to explore identical subject matter in much greater detail.

Once D opens door on direct by testifying to mitigating factors, DA may explore area with questions which would otherwise be impermissible.

Trial court did not err in allowing DA to question W about D's reputation in the neighborhood after his reputation was placed at issue by the defense.

When D offers evidence of specific acts affecting own credibility and good character, DA may impeach with evidence of relevant specific instances of D's conduct.

Evidence which was otherwise too remote properly admitted as rebuttal to party's testimony; she "opened the door."

Failure to object to inadmissible evidence does not open the door to admission of inadmissible evidence by other side.

By testifying re own good character, D "opened door" and permitted DA to introduce evidence of D's bad character.

By asking his character witnesses if they'd read about D's being investigated, D opened door to DA exploring witness' knowledge of investigation of D.