How have courts overturned convictions of pandering and other pandering cases where the prosecution objected to cross-examination of a witness's name?

In People v. Brandow, 12 Cal.App.3d 749, 754--755, 90 Cal.Rptr. 891, a conviction of pandering was reversed because the trial court sustained the prosecution's objection to a question as to what the prosecuting witness' true name was. The witness was a prostitute and police agent. The ruling was based upon a showing that the witness' life had been threatened. The reviewing court concluded, however, that

Page 807

In People v. Mascarenas, 21 Cal.App.3d 660, 98 Cal.Rptr. 728, a conviction of furnishing a narcotic to a minor was reversed because the subject of the address of the minor witness, a police agent, was ruled to be impermissible cross-examination. The address was highly relevant because the minor had kept the narcotics in a jacket pocket at his home for five days before turning it over to the police; the trial court's rulings 'precluded the defense from exploring the possibility of facts bearing upon the security of the real evidence vital to the conviction' and it was also relevant 'as it might permit the development of facts which would bear upon his community reputation or tend to show bias.' (21 Cal.App.3d at pp. 666--667, 98 Cal.Rptr. at p. 732.)

In People v. Patejdl, 35 Cal.App.3d 936, 111 Cal.Rptr. 191, a conviction of offering to sell a narcotic and selling another substance in lieu thereof was affirmed by this court even though the main evidence against the defendant was supplied by a police agent whose address was suppressed. There was evidence before the trial court of specific threats against the agent. On appeal the court distinguished the cases discussed above because (1) there was no substantial conflict between the testimony of the defendant (whose defense was entrapment and lack of knowledge that the pills were non-narcotic) and the informer on the issues determinative of guilt, (2) the defendant had known the informer [52 Cal.App.3d 75] on an intimate basis for over 1 1/2 years, (3) the defendant engaged in cross-examination of the informer on every phase of the case except his address, and (4) there was evidence of danger to the informer's wife. (35 Cal.App.3d at pp. 942--944, 111 Cal.Rptr. 191.)