People v. Argel CA2/6

DISCUSSION

Argel argues that the trial court erred when it struck his entire testimony. We review for abuse of discretion the court’s decision to strike a defendant’s testimony for refusal to answer questions on cross-examination. (People v. Reynolds (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 42, 47 (Reynolds) [no abuse of discretion where defendant refused to answer questions about the identities of other participants in the charged crime.] Argel contends we should analyze the issue under an independent review standard because he invoked a constitutional right, citing People v. Cromer (2001) 24 Cal.4th 889, 901-902 [court independently reviews question whether the prosecution exercised due diligence to locate a potentially exculpatory trial witness.] Regardless of which standard of review applies, the result is the same. The trial court did not err in striking Argel’s entire testimony, because Argel “deprived the prosecution its right to subject [his denials] to ‘the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of the truth,’ cross-examination.” (Reynolds, supra, 152 Cal.App.3d at p. 46, citing 5 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed. 1940) The Hearsay Rule Satisfied: By Cross-Examination, § 1367, p.…