People v. Johnson CA2/7

INTRODUCTION

Clarence B. Johnson appeals from the judgment on his conviction of criminal threats. On appeal he raises four separate grounds. First, appellant argues it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to restrict defense counsel’s inquiry into an eyewitness’s history of self-cutting as a basis of attacking the witness’s credibility. Second, appellant asserts the trial court erred in limiting defense counsel’s cross- examination of the alleged victim’s prior felony conviction for vandalism. Third, appellant contends it was prosecutorial misconduct for the prosecutor to repeatedly and improperly use leading questions during his direct examination of the alleged victim. Finally, appellant asserts the judgment could not order compliance with a protective order because such an order was outside the court’s jurisdiction. As we shall explain, only the claim with respect to the protective order has merit. Consequently, we strike the protective order and affirm the modified judgment. We order the abstract of judgment to be corrected accordingly.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

I. Events in Appellant’s Apartment

On July 10, 2012, at around 3:00 a.m., Adam Christenson placed a 9-1-1…