How have appellate counsel argued that the trial court's ruling that a victim's character was not prejudiced in a defense case-in-chief?

Appellant had "a choice as to presenting evidence of the victim's character, which is similar to many tactical choices at trialsuch as deciding whether to testify, or whether to present direct evidence of his own good character. The defense choice of strategy often makes admissible in rebuttal certain evidence which would not be admissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief." (People v. Blanco, supra, 10 Cal.App.4th at p. 1176.)

Appellant argues that the "apparent reason for the court's change of heart is that the defense was seeking to introduce evidence which would have supported a defense theory based on appellant being a victim of Intimate Partner Battering ('IPB'), and the court wanted to prevent the defense from doing so." We find appellate counsel's position concerning the trial court's "apparent reason" for its ruling to be both inappropriate and offensive. We point out that there "is a presumption in the honesty and integrity of our judicial officers." (People v. Hernandez (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d. 725, 746.)