In People v. Mardian (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 16, a prosecution witness testified against the defendant, and was shown to be a drug user, a convicted felon and a police informer. The court stated, "While the Supreme Court has held that prejudice may result when a defendant is forbidden from asking a witness his current address prejudice does not always or necessarily result. In Alford the court reasoned that 'prejudice ensues from a denial of the opportunity to place the witness in his proper setting and put the weight of his testimony and his credibility to a test, without which the jury cannot fairly appraise them.'. Thus, the Sixth Amendment requires, at a minimum, that a prosecution witness' testimony be placed in proper perspective, and to the extent that a witness' address may aid in properly placing this testimony, it is a constitutionally protected subject of cross-examination -- but the Sixth Amendment does not accord a defendant a right to demand to know the address of each and every prosecution witness. And federal courts have held that denial of defense inquiry into a witness' address is not error where defense counsel has already clearly placed that witness 'in his proper setting.'. In the case at hand, defense counsel placed Kenneth Donahue in his proper setting without resort to inquiry regarding his current address: on cross-examination counsel established that the witness had been granted immunity; used drugs; was a convicted felon; had sold narcotics; possessed an illegal weapon; and was working as a police informer. Such information gave the jury sufficient environmental background regarding this witness to accurately weigh and assess his testimony. Hence, defendant was not denied his Sixth Amendment right to effectively cross-examine this witness against him." ( People v. Mardian, supra, 47 Cal.App.3d at pp. 40-41.)