California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Johnson, 143 Cal.Rptr. 852, 77 Cal.App.3d 866 (Cal. App. 1978):
A prompt and complete explanation to the jury that questions are not evidence or even suggestions that the alleged admissions were made might well have cured the prejudice of the questions. (See People v. Pierce (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 313, 322, 89 Cal.Rptr. 751.) The fact that no admonition was given in the instant case may not have been entirely the fault of defense counsel. Immediately prior to the objectionable question, counsel objected to appellant's being directly asked what appellant had said to Curtis on the ground of the court's previous ruling. A discussion was held off record, the prosecutor withdrew his question and rephrased it without interference from court or defense counsel. Whether the court had ruled against defense counsel or had approved the rephrasing cannot be determined.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.