PEOPLE v. COOK III PART - III

<h4>PEOPLE v. COOK III</h4> Filed 8/14/06 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, ) ) Plaintiff and Respondent, ) ) S042223 v. ) ) WALTER JOSEPH COOK III, ) ) San Mateo County Defendant and Appellant. ) Super. Ct. No. SC31145 ___________ ) Continued from Part II â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.. Lastly, defendant complains of a question the trial court asked at the penalty phase of defendant's <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">capital trial</a>. After defendant's mother testified to problems defendant had as a teenager living in Germany, the court asked her whether school authorities there had contacted her after defendant fought with the high school coach. Because she responded that they had not, defendant contends the jury was given the impression that his mother had not been truthful in describing defendant's <a href="http://www.sandiegohealthdirectory.com/">bad behavior</a>. Because defendant failed to object below to any of the trial court's questions, he has not preserved the issue for our review. (People v. Harris (2005) 37 Cal.4th 310, 350.) Moreover, even if properly before us, the claim fails. The trial court's questions to the three witnesses were very few and <a href="http://www.sandiegohealthdirectory.com/">neutrally phrased</a>. The trial court, therefore, did not step outside its proper role of attempting to clarify witness testimony and trying to help the jury understand the evidence. Moreover, at the conclusion of both the guilt and penalty phases, the trial court instructed the jurors that they should not conclude from â€