CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Method of Exam: Cross-Exam
......Scope of Examination
.........Testifying Witness
9 Cards On This Topic:

W's perception that defense investigator harassed her [issue to which W opened door on cross] reasonably might have affected her willingness to cooperate with him and thus her credibility; inquiry relevant on either direct or cross.

No abuse of discretion in allowing cross-exam. of officer concerning victim's statements re threats D made against her to rebut impression left by D's direct exam. of officer that victim was not afraid of D.

No DA misconduct in asking D "were they lying" questions about co-D and W where questions "sought to elicit testimony that would properly assist the trier of fact in ascertaining whom to believe."

Courts to scrutinize "were they lying" questions and not permit them if argumentative, or asked to elicit irrelevant or speculative testimony; court may permit them if W has personal knowledge and may assist trier of fact on credibility.

D's atty asking on cross-exam if W, who came forward fearing implication in crime, had heard of “Three Strikes and you’re out,” was subject to sustained relevance objection where W not actually subject to 3 Strikes.

After W testified to D's admission, D had right to cross-examine W on related admission, but court not required to limit concomitant exposure to "other crimes" evidence.

DA's cross-exam of E about D's possible motive for killings was intended to rebut inference that they were attributable to PTSD and fell w/in subject matter of E's testimony on direct.

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in preventing defense from inquiring whether adult witness who was involved in reporting child molestation had a morbid fear of sexual matters.