Can a witness testify that they are afraid of being shunned by a rich uncle who disapproves lawyers?

[] Regardless of its source, the jury would be entitled to evaluate the witness's testimony knowing it was given under such circumstances. And they would be entitled to know not just that the witness was afraid, but also, within the limits of Evidence Code section 352, those facts which would enable them to evaluate the witness's fear. A witness who expresses fear of testifying because he [or she] is afraid of being shunned by a rich uncle who disapproves of lawyers would have to be evaluated quite differently than one whose fear of testifying is based upon bullets having been fired into [his or] her home the night before the trial.' [Citation.]" (People v. Mendoza, supra, 52 Cal.4th at pp. 1084-1085.)

"Likewise, in People v. Avalos (1984) 37 Cal.3d 216 . . . , an eyewitness to a crime hesitated before responding affirmatively when asked by the prosecutor whether the person she previously identified in a lineup (i.e., the defendant) was in the courtroom. [Citation.] At an in camera hearing, the trial court ruled the prosecution might ask whether the witness was reluctant to testify out of fear, because 'the fact she felt fear, whether or not caused by specific acts of any persons connected with the trial, was relevant to her credibility and . . . the probative value outweighed any potential prejudice to defendant.' [Citation.] Upon resuming the stand, the witness testified she was afraid to testify. Defense counsel then clarified during cross-examination that the witness's fear was due only to the importance of the event. [Citation.] On appeal, we concluded [in People v. Avalos] the evidence was properly admitted: 'The determination that an explanation of [the witness's] hesitation would be relevant to the jury's assessment of her credibility was well within the discretion of the trial court.' [Citation.] Moreover, the

Page 31

evidence had no prejudicial impact given counsel's clarification that the witness's fear did not reflect on the defendant. [Citation.]

"These authorities make clear that a trial court has discretion, within the limits of Evidence Code section 352, to permit the prosecution to introduce evidence supporting a witness's credibility on direct examination, particularly when the prosecution reasonably anticipates a defense attack on the credibility of that witness." (People v. Mendoza, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 1085.)

In light of the above authorities, we conclude the trial court properly exercised its discretion when it allowed Pathammavong to testify he was concerned for his safety because while in local custody somebody had "dropped a kite on [him]." Pathammavong explained this meant he was considered a "snitch" and people were out to get him. (See People v. Mendoza, supra, 52 Cal.4th at pp. 1084-1085; People v. Olguin, supra, 31 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1368-1369.)

Page 32

E. Discovery Violations