The People v. McGilbery CA1/5

DISCUSSION

Appellant first contends the trial court erroneously denied her request to recall the victim, King, as a witness after the conclusion of appellant’s testimony during the defense case. We need not decide whether the trial court erred, because any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24.) Appellant explains she wanted “to question King about restitution and a statement she had provided an insurance company,” as well as “a civil lawsuit she had filed against appellant.” She asserts, “These matters all bore on King’s credibility in general and a motivation to lie about the incident in particular.” However, even assuming the proffered inquiry would have undermined King’s credibility, there is no probability it would have changed the outcome of the trial because the key prosecution witnesses were Swafford and Romero. Both of those uninterested eyewitnesses testified that appellant accelerated into the rear of King’s car; King’s testimony was not the strongest evidence supporting appellant’s conviction on any of the counts. Appellant also contends the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on self- defense. The…