When will the prosecutor be able to call only one percipient witness to a crime and only one victim?

Defense counsel did not timely object to the challenged testimony and did not request an admonition from the trial court. Further, there is no evidence in the record to suggest that an admonition from the trial court would have been futile or that an admonition would not have cured the harm. As a result, the claim has been forfeited for appellate review. (People v. Davis, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 612.)

Even if the claim were not forfeited, appellant has not shown misconduct. Alexis was both a witness to and a victim of the charged offenses. She did offer substantive testimony relevant to the charges. Appellant has not cited, and we are not aware of, any cases which limit the prosecutor to calling only one percipient witness to a crime, or one victim. Alexis' additional testimony about her emotional state was relevant to assist the jury in determining the weight to give Alexis' testimony and explain her earlier claimed memory loss. (People v. Olguin, supra, 31 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1368-1369.)

Further, even if the testimony had some slight tendency to evoke sympathy, the trial court instructed the jurors several times to disregard any bias, sympathy, prejudice, or public opinion when forming its decision. We presume the jury understood and followed the court's instructions. (People v. Yeoman, supra, 31 Cal.4th at pp. 138-139.) Thus, appellant has not shown prejudice.

Page 11

iii. Evidence of anxiety disorder