Is it misconduct for a prosecutor to ask a witness if he believes another witness is intentionally lying?

"Although it is misconduct for a prosecutor intentionally to elicit inadmissible testimony [citation], merely eliciting evidence is not misconduct." (People v. Scott (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1188, 1218.) There is no categorical prohibition on asking a witness if he believes another witness whose testimony differs from his own is intentionally lying or merely mistaken. (People v. Chatman (2006) 38 Cal.4th 344, 382.) Thus, it is difficult to ascribe misconduct to a prosecutor who asks a witness if another witness is lying, particularly when, as here, the trial court repeatedly overrules defense objections to the questions. "Defendant's real argument is that the evidence was inadmissible." (People v. Scott, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 1218.)

b. Admissibility of evidence

"A defendant who is a percipient witness to the events at issue has personal knowledge whether other witnesses who describe those events are testifying truthfully and accurately. As a result, he might also be able to provide insight on whether witnesses whose testimony differs from his own are intentionally lying or are merely mistaken." (People v. Chatman, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 382 [italics added].) For example, the defendant might claim that he had "better vantage point from which to observe the event" or know of "facts that would show a witness's testimony might be inaccurate." (Id. at p. 383.) In instances where he "knows the other witnesses well, he might know of reasons those witness might lie." (Id. at p. 382.) A defendant's insight into facts or motives "would properly assist the trier of fact in ascertaining whom to believe." (Id. at p. 383.)