People v. Jordan

PEEK, J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of one count charging violation of Penal Code, section 220, and from a second count charging violation of Penal Code, section 286.

The sufficiency of the evidence is not attacked, but defendant

[729]

does contend (1) that the trial court unduly restricted his cross-examination of the prosecutrix; (2) that the court erred in admitting certain items of wearing apparel into evidence ; (3) that the trial court erred in sustaining an objection to a hypothetical question asked of an expert witness on cross-examination ; and (4) that the prosecuting attorney committed prejudicial misconduct.

It has long been the rule that on cross-examination great latitude should be allowed

(People

v.

Williams,

18 Cal. 187); however the scope thereof is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its rulings will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear showing of an abuse of discretion.

(People

v.

Nazworth,

152 Cal.App.2d 790, 796 [313 P.2d 113].) The particular question asked of the prosecutrix by defense counsel related to the element of sexual connection. The situation presented was not such as where a party was completely precluded from cross-examining a witness upon a material fact. Like questions had been asked previously, and the prosecutrix had answered apparently as best she could. Furthermore it appears from the discussion of this issue in the briefs of the parties that the manner in which the question was asked was unduly embarrassing and insulting to the prosecutrix. While it is difficult to determine such matters from the cold record, if the question did fall into such category, the question as asked was likewise improper upon this ground. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2066;

Dastagir