is instructive. The defendant in was tried for the of his Marsh girlfriend’s young son. (People 175 Cal.App.3d at pp. 990-991.) v. Marsh, supra, Marsh held that the prosecutor was properly allowed to impeach the defendant’s character witnesses who testified the defendant was kind, loving, gentle, and patient with “‘very children,’” by asking the witnesses whether they were aware the defendant had a prior robbery conviction. As explained, the character witnesses testified the defendant Marsh had a character trait for nonviolence, and the robbery was assaultive-type crime “an directly relevant” to that character trait. (Id. at p. 992.) Similarly here, C.H. testified he trust defendant around his 13-year-old son, and Mrs. A. testified defendant had grown to be a good person who was trustworthy and loving toward his family. In both instances, this testimony was akin to opining defendant was a person of good character who was unlikely to molest children. That defendant had a prior conviction for violating section 288, subdivision (a) was directly relevant to whether he possessed this character trait. Thus there was no error in allowing the prosecutor to ask both C.H. and Mrs. A. whether they knew of the prior conviction and, if so, whether it changed their opinions of defendant’s good character. (People v. Marsh, 175 Cal.App.3d at p. 992.) supra, 3. Any Was Harmless Even if defendant’s prior section 288, subdivision (a) conviction was erroneously placed before the jury, the error was harmless. The standard of review applicable Watson to claims of state law error applies, and there is no reasonable probability defendant
is instructive. The defendant in Marsh was tried for the of his girlfriend’s young son. (People v. Marsh, supra, 175 Cal.App.3d at pp. 990-991.) Marsh held that the prosecutor was properly allowed to impeach the defendant’s character witnesses who testified the defendant was “‘very kind, loving, gentle, and patient with children,’” by asking the witnesses whether they were aware the defendant had a prior robbery conviction. As Marsh explained, the character witnesses testified the defendant had a character trait for nonviolence, and the robbery was “an assaultive-type crime directly relevant” to that character trait. (Id. at p. 992.) Similarly here, C.H. testified he trust defendant around his 13-year-old son, and Mrs. A. testified defendant had grown to be a good person who was trustworthy and loving toward his family. In both instances, this testimony was akin to opining defendant was a person of good character who was unlikely to molest children. That defendant had a prior conviction for violating section 288, subdivision (a) was directly relevant to whether he possessed this character trait. Thus there was no error in allowing the prosecutor to ask both C.H. and Mrs. A. whether they knew of the prior conviction and, if so, whether it changed their opinions of defendant’s good character. (People v. Marsh, supra, 175 Cal.App.3d at p. 992.) 3. Any Was Harmless Even if defendant’s prior section 288, subdivision (a) conviction was erroneously placed before the jury, the error was harmless. The Watson standard of review applicable to claims of state law error applies, and there is no reasonable probability defendant
E064206.DOCX