## Facts

- Dolatao Soldana Zambrano was prosecuted for selling and transporting cocaine under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11352(a), with alleged prior strike and prior prison term enhancements.
- Undercover officers testified they observed Zambrano participate in a cocaine sale leading to his arrest.
- Zambrano testified and gave an account that materially conflicted with the officers’ version of events.
- On cross-examination, the prosecutor repeatedly asked Zambrano whether the officers were “lying” or “not telling the truth” about each point of conflict.
- Zambrano ultimately stated the officers were lying on multiple points.
- In rebuttal, the prosecutor called an officer solely to testify he was not lying and would not risk his job by lying.
- The prosecutor emphasized Zambrano’s “they were lying” answers and the officer’s denial in closing and rebuttal argument.
- The jury convicted Zambrano; the trial court found the prior strike and prior prison term allegations true and imposed sentence accordingly.

## Issues

1. Whether it was error to permit repeated “were they lying” questions asking the defendant to opine on police officers’ credibility.
2. Whether the prosecutor committed misconduct by using repeated “were they lying” questions and presenting rebuttal testimony solely to deny lying and bolster an officer’s credibility.
3. Whether any error or misconduct was prejudicial requiring reversal under state harmless-error standards.

## Decision

- The court held the repeated “were they lying” questions were improper because they sought inadmissible lay opinion on veracity, intruded on the jury’s credibility function, and were irrelevant.
- The court held the prosecutor’s conduct amounted to misconduct where the questioning was used extensively to berate the defendant and inflame the jury.
- The court also found the rebuttal tactic—calling an officer solely to deny lying and asserting he would not risk his job—improperly bolstered credibility and compounded the misconduct.
- The court concluded the error and misconduct were harmless under the reasonable-probability standard and affirmed the judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Credibility determinations are for the trier of fact; a witness generally may not be asked to give an opinion on whether another witness is telling the truth.
- “Were they lying” questions are objectionable when they compel a witness to label another as a liar, serve no legitimate evidentiary purpose, or are used to inflame the jury or bolster credibility.
- Prosecutorial misconduct may occur when the prosecutor repeatedly deploys “were they lying” questions as a rhetorical device and then exploits the answers in argument or through improper rebuttal bolstering.
- Under California harmless-error review (Watson), reversal is not required absent a reasonable probability of a more favorable result without the error.

## Conclusion

The court condemned repeated “were they lying” cross-examination and related rebuttal bolstering as improper and misconduct, but affirmed because the record did not show a reasonable probability the verdict would have differed without the challenged tactics.


People v. Zambrano, 124 Cal. App. 4th 228 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)