Filed 4/27/23 P. v. Castaneda CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CARLOS JOSEPH CASTANEDA,

Defendant and Appellant.

 H048397

 (Santa Clara County

 Super. Ct. No. C1905492)

Defendant Carlos Joseph Castaneda was convicted by a jury of inflicting corporal 

injury on an intimate partner (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a))1and misdemeanor simple 

assault (§ 240) and was sentenced to three years in prison. On appeal, Castaneda argues 

that the prosecutor committed misconduct multiple times during closing argument by 

misstating the burden of proof and standard of reasonable doubt, baselessly accusing the

defense witnesses of lying, denigrating defense counsel, and burdening Castaneda’s

constitutional rights by arguing that he used his right to discovery to concoct a defense. 

Although we agree that some of the prosecutor’s comments constituted misconduct, we 

conclude that any error was harmless either individually or cumulatively. We affirm the 

judgment.

1 Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Information

On July 2, 2019, the Santa Clara District Attorney charged Castaneda by 

information with inflicting corporal injury on an intimate partner (§ 273.5, subd. (a); 

count 1), assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, 

subd. (a)(4); count 2), second degree robbery (§ 212.5, subd. (c); count 3), and 

misdemeanor battery on a spouse or cohabitant (§ 243, subd. (e)(1); count 4). The 

information further alleged that Castaneda had a prior strike (§ 1170.12) that was also a 

prior serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)). 

B. The Prosecution’s Case2

1. The Offense3

Shortly after midnight on October 25, 2018, Officer Ramon Valverde of the San 

Jose Police Department was investigating a car crash on Monterey Road and Capital 

Expressway when an unrelated car came speeding north up Monterey Road. The car 

stopped, reversed against traffic, and parked in front of the police cars, blocking the 

intersection. The driver, E.Z., got out and told the officers her boyfriend was following 

her and she needed help. At the time, E.Z. appeared confused and flustered. E.Z. 

eventually identified her boyfriend as Castaneda. 

At one point, E.Z. picked up a call from Castaneda, who said: “You want to play 

games, you want to stop in front of the cops, huh?” When Castaneda called again, 

Valverde tried to speak to him, but Castaneda hung up. Later, E.Z. said that she thought 

she saw Castaneda driving away. Under the streetlights, Valverde could see that E.Z. had 

2 After the presentation of the prosecution’s evidence, the trial court granted the 

prosecutor’s motion to dismiss counts 3 and 4 due to a lack of evidence. 

3 Video clips from the officers’ body-worn cameras, which recorded E.Z.’s initial 

statements to the officers, were admitted into evidence and played for the jury. 
3

some redness on her face and neck and swelling on the cheekbone area. Valverde did not 

think that E.Z. was under the influence of alcohol or drugs, so he did not perform any 

sobriety tests. 

E.Z. described Castaneda as jealous and said that he thought she had been 

“running around, sleeping, like a typical boyfriend.” E.Z. said that she had “never been 

this scared.” As she spoke to the officers, Castaneda continued to call E.Z., and she

needed help to type in her phone’s passcode. E.Z. said that Castaneda had choked her 

twice in the car to the point where she could not breathe and that he had “sock[ed]” her 

face and slapped her. E.Z. said that she had been driving back home to Los Baños when 

Castaneda started following her, and she thought she would have gotten into a car 

accident if she had not stopped. 

San Jose Police Department Officer Ramiro Garcia spoke to E.Z. again at the 

hospital emergency room after she was transported for medical care. At the time, E.Z. 

still appeared frightened. She largely reiterated the allegations she made against 

Castaneda at the scene—that Castaneda had struck her repeatedly and that she had even 

thought about jumping out of the car to escape him.4

2. Attempts to Locate E.Z.

There were several unsuccessful attempts to locate E.Z. and bring her to testify at 

Castaneda’s trial. District Attorney Investigator Juan Hernandez was able to speak to 

E.Z. over the phone nearly a year after the offense, and, at the time, E.Z. said that she was 

unsure if she wanted to meet with Hernandez and declined to give her current address. 

E.Z. told Hernandez that she was two months pregnant with Castaneda’s baby, though 

she no longer spoke to him. Hernandez later left a trial subpoena and other documents on 

the windshield of E.Z.’s car, and he saw E.Z. take the documents. E.Z., however, did not 

4 A video clip of E.Z.’s hospital interview was admitted into evidence solely to

evaluate E.Z.’s credibility. 
4

follow up with Hernandez. Another investigator, Mark Stevenson, tried to locate E.Z. 

and drove to E.Z.’s address in Los Baños. Stevenson left his contact information after 

knocking on the door. 

3. Jail Calls

Several of Castaneda’s jail calls were admitted into evidence. In one call, E.Z. and 

Castaneda expressed their love for each other and their confusion over the criminal 

charges. E.Z. asked, “[I]f it was for mine, why would they have robbery?” Castaneda 

responded, “Well, it’s not, I don’t think it’s a robbery charge. I think it’s just, um, like 

forcing fear into somebody or some shit like that. . . .” E.Z. responded, “And even if that, 

you didn’t do anything to me like that.” In another call, E.Z. told Castaneda that she had 

gone through the police reports and saw that the incident happened on October 25, not 

October 24, and she asked Castaneda what he did. Castaneda responded that he did not 

do anything. And in another call, Castaneda stated, “All they got is the police report. 

Same thing that happened with my fucking last case with [N.A.] It’s just he said, she 

said. That’s all they have. They don’t have anything.” Castaneda also said, “I know 

what I did and I know what I didn’t do.”

4. Prior Acts Admitted under Evidence Code section 1109

The prosecutor introduced two of Castaneda’s prior convictions into evidence—a 

conviction for vandalism and a conviction for “violat[ing] . . . 273.5(a).” The prosecutor 

also presented evidence of the conduct underlying the two convictions as follows:

On August 19, 2015, an employee from a business near the Camera Cinema in 

downtown San Jose called 911 at the request of a woman, later identified as N.A. The 

caller reported that the woman was with a man who had threatened to punch another 

employee and had tried to smash the business’s window. N.A. told the 911 dispatcher 

that Castaneda was the man who had been with her, and he was her ex-boyfriend. N.A. 

also said that Castaneda had been threatening her and would not leave her alone “for like 
5

an hour.” The responding officer on arrival saw that one of the cinema’s double doors 

was shattered. 

On September 4, 2015, N.A. called 911 and reported that Castaneda had hit her 

and had broken things inside her house. She also said that she was bleeding from her 

nose and that Castaneda had run away down the street. The responding officer found 

N.A. waiting in her car at the front of the house. N.A. had a swollen nose with a bit of 

blood below it and the beginnings of a black eye. 

At trial, N.A. testified that she had problems with alcohol during the five-year 

period when she was dating Castaneda and could not recall anything about either 

incident. She did not recall any incidents of violence with Castaneda, though she 

acknowledged that they frequently argued. N.A. no longer spoke to Castaneda and had 

not seen him in several years. 

N.A. had failed to appear for prior proceedings in the case involving E.Z., and she 

was present in court to testify only because a detective had arrived at her residence. 

Investigator Stevenson had transported N.A. to the trial to testify, and she had initially 

told him that she did not want to be in court if Castaneda was present. Based on N.A.’s 

facial expressions, Stevenson inferred that she was afraid of Castaneda.

5. Intimate Partner Violence Expert

Licensed marriage and family therapist Richard Ferry testified that victims of 

intimate partner violence are often reluctant to report incidents due to fear of retaliation, 

shame or embarrassment, or a sense that these types of events should be kept private. 

According to Ferry, many victims of intimate partner violence recant their allegations, 

refuse to cooperate with the investigation, or refuse to go to court. Victims may fear 

retaliation and have a continuing “paradoxical attachment” to the abuser. Ferry opined 

that traumatic bonding may also occur, and victims may have a lingering attachment to 

their abuser. 
6

C. The Defense

Castaneda’s defense was that E.Z. had concocted the story about Castaneda’s 

abuse to officers at the scene, and that her visible injuries were the result of a fight that 

E.Z. had with another woman.

1. E.Z.’s Interview

Mariana Alvarez, an investigator with the public defender’s office, attempted to 

contact E.Z. by calling her phone numbers and looking for her addresses. Eventually, 

Alvarez sent contact letters to “whatever addresses” she could find for E.Z. and visited 

the residence of E.Z.’s father. After speaking with E.Z.’s father, Alvarez left him a card. 

About two weeks after Alvarez’s visit to E.Z.’s father and E.Z.’s call with Hernandez,

Alvarez received a call from a woman who identified herself as E.Z. and said she was 

responding to one of Alvarez’s letters. Alvarez had never met or spoken with E.Z. 

before, but the woman on the phone was able to provide E.Z.’s identifying information, 

including her date of birth and driver’s license number.5 Alvarez took notes of the 

interview with E.Z., but in accordance with office policy, Alvarez did not record or 

request E.Z.’s consent to record the interview. Also in accordance with office policy, 

Alvarez destroyed her notes upon completion of her written report of the interview. 

Over the phone, E.Z. said that she and Castaneda’s relationship had ended 

sometime in the summer of 2018, when Castaneda started dating someone else.6 E.Z. 

explained that she was upset when the relationship ended because she thought that 

Castaneda had cheated on her with another woman. 

5 Alvarez had previously obtained E.Z.’s personal identifying information from the 

DMV and the police report associated with the case. 

6 E.Z.’s statements to Alvarez were admitted for the limited purpose of 

impeaching her prior statements to the police at the scene. 
7

E.Z. told Alvarez that on the evening of October 24, 2018, around 10:00 p.m., she 

and her friend Christina were out driving, drinking, and smoking marijuana, when they 

ran into the woman that E.Z. believed Castaneda had an affair with. E.Z. said that she

had “recognized the girl from photos and . . . mutual friends.” E.Z. and the other woman 

exchanged words and the situation escalated into a physical fight. E.Z. sustained bruises, 

and Christina left. The other woman also tried to leave, so E.Z. went into her car to 

pursue her. E.Z. was “really upset” and at some point ended up on the street, blaming

Castaneda for the whole situation. E.Z. told Alvarez that she “knew the police weren’t 

going to believe her or try to do anything about it,” so she “made up this thing against 

[Castaneda].” 

E.Z. told Alvarez that she did not intend to cooperate with the district attorney 

because she did not want to get into trouble, having lied to the police. E.Z. was now 

pregnant with Castaneda’s baby, and she thought that the stress from getting involved 

with the prosecution would cause a miscarriage. 

2. Mariah Ruiz Reyes

Mariah Ruiz Reyes had been friends with Castaneda since middle school and was 

best friends with Castaneda’s sister, Rosa. Reyes had previously hired both Castaneda 

and E.Z. to work for her at the restaurant that she managed, and she had on occasion 

worked shifts with both Castaneda and E.Z. Reyes had been in a romantic relationship 

with Castaneda last year, but they were now just friends. She had not spoken to him for 

about eight months. 

A few days before Halloween last year, Reyes was sitting in a parked car in a

parking lot of an apartment complex on Monterey Road drinking alcohol with friends 

when she saw E.Z. driving by in a car. When E.Z. spotted Reyes, she pulled into the 

parking lot, got out of her car, and started arguing with Reyes. At the time, E.Z. was with 

another woman. E.Z. told Reyes that she had seen Castaneda’s messages and knew that 

Reyes and Castaneda “had been talking.” The verbal argument turned physical: E.Z. 
8

pushed Reyes and pulled her hair, and Reyes grabbed E.Z.’s neck to get her off. Reyes 

hit E.Z. “more on the right” side of her face, though she thought she struck E.Z. on both 

sides of her face. The fight seemed to last for “a long time” and ended when Reyes’s 

friend pulled Reyes off E.Z. Reyes saw that E.Z. had a scratch on her neck, and E.Z.’s 

face was red. Reyes and one of her friends left in a car because they thought they would 

get into trouble for fighting. She noticed that E.Z. continued to pursue her for about two 

stoplights. 

Reyes told Rosa about the incident with E.Z. shortly after it occurred. However, 

she did not think much about the incident until she was contacted by a defense 

investigator a few days before Castaneda’s trial. At trial, Reyes conceded that the male 

voice heard speaking through E.Z.’s phone in the officers’ body-worn camera footage

sometimes sounded like Castaneda, though Reyes initially denied being able to identify 

Castaneda’s voice in the video. 

3. Rosa Castaneda

Castaneda’s sister, Rosa, used to live with Castaneda and knew E.Z., as E.Z. used 

to frequently visit Castaneda. Rosa recalled that one time in March 2018, Castaneda and 

Rosa were watching television when E.Z. started to repeatedly call Castaneda on the 

phone. Castaneda told E.Z. he was just trying to “hang[] out with” his sister, but E.Z. 

showed up in person about ten minutes later. Rosa thought that E.Z. believed that 

Castaneda was with another woman. E.Z. looked around the apartment and asked where 

the other woman was. Castaneda denied that he was with anyone else and told E.Z. that 

he was just with Rosa. He also told E.Z. that if she continued to behave this way, he 

would break up with her. E.Z. told Castaneda that he was not going to leave her and 

started to bang her head against the wall. She also said that she was going to call the 

police and tell them that he had hit her. E.Z. said she would rather see Castaneda in jail 

than with anyone else. Rosa’s landlord eventually intervened after hearing the noise. 
9

Reyes told Rosa about the fight that Reyes had with E.Z., but Rosa could not recall 

when Reyes told her about it. At trial, Rosa listened to several audio clips of the voice 

heard over E.Z.’s phone but testified that she was unable to identify the male voice as 

Castaneda’s due to what she characterized as “a lot of distortion.” Rosa later testified, 

however, that the voice on one of the clips “sounded” like Castaneda and was in fact him. 

D. The Verdict and Sentencing

On November 6, 2019, the jury found Castaneda guilty of inflicting corporal 

injury on an intimate partner (§ 273.5, subd. (a)). The jury acquitted Castaneda of assault 

by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)) but found 

him guilty of the lesser included offense of misdemeanor simple assault (§ 240). The 

trial court struck Castaneda’s prior strike under section 1385 and sentenced him to the 

middle term of three years for count 1 and a concurrent six-month term for the 

misdemeanor simple assault.

II. DISCUSSION

On appeal, Castaneda argues that multiple prosecutorial errors in this case require 

the reversal of the judgment. He argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct by 

misstating the burden of proof and reasonable doubt standard, baselessly accusing the 

defense witnesses of lying, denigrating defense counsel, and burdening his constitutional 

rights by arguing that he used his right to discovery to fabricate a defense. 
10

A. Legal Principles and Standard of Review7

“ ‘[T]he term prosecutorial “misconduct” is somewhat of a misnomer to the extent 

that it suggests a prosecutor must act with a culpable state of mind. A more apt 

description of the transgression is prosecutorial error.’ ” (People v. Centeno (2014) 60 

Cal.4th 659, 666-667 (Centeno).) Bad faith is not required. (Id. at p. 666.) “A 

prosecutor’s conduct violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the federal Constitution 

when it infects the trial with such unfairness as to make the conviction a denial of due 

process.” (People v. Morales (2001) 25 Cal.4th 34, 44.) “Conduct by a prosecutor that 

does not render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair is prosecutorial misconduct under 

state law only if it involves the use of deceptive or reprehensible methods to attempt to 

persuade either the trial court or the jury.” (Ibid.) 

Although a prosecutor “ ‘enjoys wide latitude in commenting on the evidence, 

including the reasonable inferences and deductions that can be drawn therefrom[,]’ ” it is 

prosecutorial error to misstate the law or the evidence. (People v. Fayed (2020) 9 Cal.5th 

147, 204 (Fayed).) It is also prosecutorial misconduct to disparage defense counsel in 

front of the jury (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1193) or to otherwise “appeal 

to the passions and prejudices of the jury,” which is “ ‘ “out of place [in] an objective 

determination of guilt.” ’ ” (People v. Seumanu (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1293, 1342

(Seumanu).) But “any allegedly improper statements by the prosecutor must be 

considered in light of the entire argument.” (People v. Holmes, McClain and Newborn

(2022) 12 Cal.5th 719, 789 (Holmes).) “ ‘A defendant asserting prosecutorial misconduct 

7 Castaneda did not object or request an admonition to the majority of the

prosecutor’s challenged remarks. To preserve a claim of prosecutorial misconduct for 

appeal, a defendant must make a timely and specific objection to the challenged 

statement and ask the trial court to admonish the jury to disregard the improper 

statements. (People v. Fayed (2020) 9 Cal.5th 147, 204.) However, as Castaneda argues 

that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the alleged instances of 

misconduct, we reach the merits of his claims.
11

must . . . establish a reasonable likelihood the jury construed the remarks in an 

objectionable fashion.’ ” (Fayed, supra, 9 Cal.5th at p. 204.) 

“Although we generally review claims of prosecutorial error for an abuse of 

discretion [citation], we independently examine what the law is [citations] and 

‘objective[ly]’ examine how a ‘reasonable juror’ would likely interpret the prosecutor’s 

remarks [citations], bearing in mind that ‘ “we ‘do not lightly infer’ that the jury drew the 

most damaging rather than the least damaging meaning from the prosecutor’s statements. 

[Citation.]” ’ [Citation.]” (People v. Collins (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 333, 340 (Collins).)

B. Misstating the Reasonable Doubt Standard

1. Background

During closing argument, the prosecutor acknowledged her burden of proving 

guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is “the highest standard we have [under] the 

law, but it’s not an impossible one.” The prosecutor explained: “You must have an 

abiding conviction that the charge is true. That’s it. No more. No less. And, obviously, 

the doubt has to be reasonable, reasonable and based on the evidence that has been

presented, because in life, everything in law is open to some possible creative, 

speculative, conjectur[al] doubt or imaginary doubt.” The prosecutor then argued that 

there was both circumstantial and direct evidence in the case, and “[i]f the defense puts 

up a theory, which they have in this case, and that’s also reasonable, and you think about 

it, and you are like, ‘yeah, it could possibly have happened that way when you consider 

all of the evidence.’ Yes. You must find the defendant not guilty.” 

The prosecutor then continued: “However, when the People’s theory is 

reasonable—I don’t think [defense counsel] is going to say that it’s not—and the defense 

theory is unreasonable—again, think about that key piece of evidence, that very first 

phone call, with [Castaneda’s] voice where he knows she’s with the cops—if their theory 

is unreasonable, which [it] is, in fact in this case, then the defendant is guilty. [¶] And 

the reason I want to stress that is because oftentimes in cases, two sides are presented, 
12

and when you take the time to look and evaluate those two sides, especially this case, you 

can see that one side, the defense side, is completely unreasonable. You throw that out 

and find the defendant guilty. Just like his ‘damn last’—‘fucking last case with [N.A.]’ ” 

2. Analysis

Castaneda argues that the prosecutor’s comments improperly suggested to the jury 

that it could convict Castaneda if the People’s case was “reasonable,” thereby lowering 

the prosecution’s burden of proof. We agree that it was improper for the prosecutor to 

imply “that the People’s burden was met if its theory was ‘reasonable’ in light of the facts 

supporting it.” (Centeno, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 671.) 

In Centeno, the California Supreme Court concluded that the prosecutor is 

permitted to argue that the jury should reject unreasonable interpretations of the evidence, 

but it was error for the prosecutor “to suggest that a ‘reasonable’ account of the evidence 

satisfies the prosecutor’s burden of proof.” (Centeno, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 672.) 

Furthermore, it is the prosecutor’s burden to prove the case, and although the 

“prosecution can surely point out that interpretations proffered by the defense are neither 

reasonable nor credible . . . that conclusion does not relieve or mitigate the prosecutorial 

burden. The prosecution cannot suggest that deficiencies in the defense case can make 

up for shortcomings in its own.” (Id. at p. 673.)

Here, the prosecutor at first properly argued that the jury could disregard 

unreasonable interpretations of the evidence and that the defense’s theory was 

unreasonable. (Centeno, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 672.) The prosecutor can fairly argue 

that the jury should reject unreasonable factual inferences from circumstantial evidence—

and, along those same lines, the prosecutor can argue that a reasonable factual inference 

pointing to guilt might be compulsory if all other inferences suggested by the 

circumstantial evidence are unreasonable. (Ibid.; People v. Brasure (2008) 42 Cal.4th 

1037, 1058 [“an unreasonable inference pointing to innocence is, by definition, not 
13

grounds for a reasonable doubt”].)

8

 Yet the prosecutor cannot conflate the concept of 

rejecting an unreasonable evidentiary inference with the standard of proof beyond a 

reasonable doubt on the ultimate issue of guilt. (Centeno, supra, at p. 672.) And here, 

the prosecutor improperly went on to suggest that if the defense theory was 

“unreasonable” and the prosecution’s theory was “reasonable,” then the jury must find 

Castaneda guilty. Effectively, the prosecutor suggested that “deficiencies in the defense 

case can make up for shortcomings in its own” (id. at p. 673) and further suggested that a 

“reasonable” standard was sufficient to satisfy proof beyond a reasonable doubt (id. at 

p. 672). This statement misstated the prosecutor’s burden of proof and standard of 

reasonable doubt.

However, even though the prosecutor’s statement was erroneous, reversal is not 

required absent prejudice. We discuss prejudice in part II.F., post. 

C. Defense Witnesses as Liars

1. Background

During closing argument, the prosecutor argued that Castaneda, Rosa, and Reyes 

had fabricated a defense that involved Reyes and E.Z. getting into an altercation together. 

The prosecutor also argued that Reyes and Rosa had lied when they testified that they did 

not recognize Castaneda’s voice on the body-worn camera video, stating: “Ms. Reyes 

and Ms. Castaneda, I played this for them. This portion of the body-worn camera 

footage, as well as the second call [Castaneda] makes almost immediately after the first. 

And they, with little smirks on their faces, tried to say, ‘Oh, it’s garbled. It’s not clear. 

It’s staticky. I don’t recognize their voice.’ [¶] Liars.” 

8 This applies only to circumstantial evidence. “ ‘Circumstantial evidence 

involves a two-step process—first, the parties present evidence and, second, the jury 

decides which reasonable inference or inferences, if any, to draw from the evidence—but 

direct evidence stands on its own. So as to direct evidence no need ever arises to decide 

if an opposing inference suggests innocence.’ ” (People v. Livingston (2012) 53 Cal.4th 

1145, 1166.)
14

The prosecutor also suggested at times that the person that defense investigator 

Alvarez spoke with over the phone was not E.Z. but was in fact someone else—arguing

that “[E.Z.] allegedly called and spoke to a defense investigator.” 

Next, the prosecutor argued that Castaneda and Reyes concocted a defense 

together, stating: “They must have thought, in between September 3 and October, okay, 

this story about how [E.Z.] doesn’t know who this person is. It’s not good enough. It’s 

not going to be good enough. We need to have someone come in and actually say that 

they were in a fight with her. So who do we have? Who do we have that is willing to do 

that? ‘Oh Mariah, you are my sister’s best friend. Come on in.’ But that’s a problem, 

right? Because, obviously, Mariah and [E.Z.] knew each other well. If the first statement 

was accurate about who she got into a fight with—she would have said, if she’s trying to 

help the defendant, ‘Hey, it’s this woman Mariah. I worked with her [at the restaurant]. 

Here is how you can get in contact with her.’ But whoever first spoke to the investigator 

didn’t say that, because they hadn’t made up that part of the story yet.” 

The prosecutor then referenced the movie, My Cousin Vinnie, and described a 

scene in the movie where the protagonist discovers that a prosecutor’s discovery 

obligations require the disclosure of evidence. Following this vignette, the prosecutor 

argued, “They know. They have the police report. The jail calls. The body worn camera 

footage. They have it all, which gives them the advantage of, ‘how do we craft a defense 

around this?’ Okay? So she stops at the intersection of Monterey Road and Capital 

Expressway. Okay. ‘So we need to have this staged fight occur somewhere, some 

random—some place nearby. We have got to fit it in because it’s not true.’ ” 

And finally during rebuttal, the prosecutor argued again that both Reyes and Rosa 

lied when they testified, arguing: “It’s an unfortunate reality in our criminal justice 

system that witnesses take an oath, and they swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and 

nothing but the truth, for most people, that actually means something and they endeavor

to provide the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to the best of their ability. 
15

To other people, those are just words, and they have no problems getting up on the 

witness stand saying they’re going to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth and then lying to you. And that’s exactly what Ms. Reyes and what Ms. Castaneda 

did.” 

2. Analysis

Castaneda argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct by arguing, in his 

view without evidence, that he and defense witnesses Reyes and Rosa conspired together 

to commit perjury and fabricate evidence, and that Reyes and Rosa were liars and 

perjurers. We disagree. 

Generally, a “prosecutor is permitted to urge, in colorful terms, that defense 

witnesses are not entitled to credence . . . [and] to argue on the basis of inference from the 

evidence that a defense is fabricated . . . .” (People v. Pinholster (1992) 1 Cal.4th 865, 

948 [no misconduct when prosecutor referred to a defense witness as a “ ‘weasel’ ” and 

suggesting another witness was a “perjurer,” or that witnesses had not been “ ‘following 

the script’ ”], disapproved of on a different point as stated in People v. Williams (2010) 

49 Cal.4th 405, 459.) Moreover, “the prosecutor has wide latitude in describing the 

deficiencies in opposing counsel’s tactics and factual account.” (People v. Bemore

(2000) 22 Cal.4th 809, 846 (Bemore).) It is not, for example, misconduct for the 

prosecutor to “criticize[] the defense theory of the case because it lacks evidentiary 

support.” (Ibid.)

Accordingly, “[i]nterpretive, but fair, comment on evidence submitted to the jury 

is proper.” (People v. Ellis (1966) 65 Cal.2d 529, 539 (Ellis).) And here, the

prosecutor’s comments were an appropriate comment on the evidence, including the 

“conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence and those evidentiary matters that render 

the prosecution testimony more believable than that submitted by the defense.” (Ibid.) 

Thus, it was not misconduct for the prosecutor to argue that Rosa’s and Reyes’s 

respective testimony lacked credibility because of certain logical inconsistencies—for 
16

example, that both witnesses, despite their close relationship with Castaneda, had 

purportedly forgotten about E.Z.’s confrontation with Reyes until shortly before

Castaneda’s trial. Moreover, it was not misconduct for the prosecutor to argue that 

Reyes’s account of how she and E.Z. coincidentally came across each other while E.Z. 

was driving down a street during the evening hours strained credulity: the prosecutor’s 

argument on this point was a fair comment on the evidence.

Nor was it misconduct—on this record—for the prosecutor to suggest that the 

defense witnesses had fabricated a defense. “The prosecution has broad discretion to 

state its views as to what the evidence shows and what inferences may be drawn 

therefrom.” (People v. Mitcham (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1027, 1052.) For example, in 

Mitcham, the prosecutor argued that the defendant and codefendant had been riding side 

by side together, en route to the crime scene, and suggested that the men may have had 

conversations about why the defendant was dressed the way he was dressed, or that the 

codefendant knew of the defendant’s objective to commit a robbery. (Id. at p. 1050.) 

The defendant argued that the prosecutor had improperly engaged in speculation as to the 

possible discussions between the two men and had referred to facts outside of the record 

by suggesting that the men drove around before the crimes. (Id. at p. 1051.) Mitcham 

concluded that the prosecutor’s comments constituted reasonable inferences drawn from 

evidence that the codefendant had driven to the scene prior to the robbery and was 

observed fleeing with the defendant shortly after the robbery occurred. (Id. at pp. 1051-

1052.)

Here, as in Mitcham, the suggestion that defense was fabricated and the 

prosecutor’s argument and Reyes and Rosa may have discussed how to align their 

testimony was supported by evidentiary inferences in the record—Rosa and Reyes were 

good friends, Rosa testified that she was close with her brother, and there were reasons to 

doubt both witnesses’ veracity. Moreover, Castaneda could be heard in one of the bodyworn cameras asking E.Z. if she wanted to “play games” by stopping when she saw 
17

police officers, which undermined Reyes’s account that the altercation was solely 

between her and E.Z., and there was evidence that Castaneda was aware of the existence 

of the police reports based on his jail calls with E.Z. It was a fair inference for the 

prosecutor to argue that the defense witnesses may have collaborated with each other.

The prosecutor did not impermissibly suggest that she personally had extrinsic evidence 

that the witnesses had fabricated their testimony. (See People v. Johnson (1981) 121 

Cal.App.3d 94, 102 [misconduct for prosecutor to suggest witness’s testimony was a lie 

as prosecutor had reminded the jury that he had personally investigated the case and that 

he had the personal belief that the witness’s testimony was a lie].)

It was also not misconduct for the prosecutor to argue that E.Z. was not the 

woman who spoke to Alvarez over the phone—the prosecutor based her arguments on 

the evidence presented: that the defense investigator solely believed the woman to be 

E.Z. because of the woman’s ability to give certain personal identifying information, and 

that the defense investigator had never met E.Z. and would not have known what her 

voice sounded like. Although one inference from the evidence is that Alvarez spoke with 

E.Z., an alternate inference is that Alvarez spoke with someone claiming to be E.Z. 

Though E.Z.’s undisputed refusal to cooperate with the district attorney tended to 

undermine the inference urged by the prosecutor here, “the reasonableness of inferences 

counsel draws from matters in evidence ‘ “ ‘is for the jury to decide.’ ” ’ ” (Holmes, 

supra, 12 Cal.5th at p. 787.)

In short, the prosecutor’s suggestion that Castaneda and his circle may have 

fabricated a defense or that the person Alvarez interviewed may not have been E. Z. did 

not mischaracterize or assume facts not in evidence, these statements were merely 

permissible comments on the evidence. (Holmes, supra, 12 Cal.5th at p. 787.) 

Moreover, the prosecutor did not commit misconduct when she called Rosa and 

Reyes liars “with little smirks on their faces” and later, by implication, perjurers who did 

not take their oaths to tell the truth seriously. For example, in People v. Edelbacher
18

(1989) 47 Cal.3d 983, the California Supreme Court held that it is acceptable to call a 

defendant’s out-of-court and in-court statements as “ ‘lies’ ” so long as the prosecutor is 

arguing inferences based on the evidence rather than a personal belief based on matters 

outside the record. (Id. at p. 1030; see also People v. Williams (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1166, 

1189 [claim that defendant lied and knowingly put on contradictory evidence not 

misconduct].) The prosecutor did not argue that Rosa’s and Reyes’s lies warranted 

Castaneda’s conviction—rather, the prosecutor argued that because the witnesses had not 

told the truth, Castaneda’s defense should be rejected. (See People v. Earp (1999) 20 

Cal.4th 826, 864; but see Ellis, supra, 65 Cal.2d at pp. 539-541 [misconduct to call 

defendant perjurer and argue that the defendant’s lies warranted his conviction].) 

Moreover, the prosecutor in this case did not argue that she believed Rosa and Reyes had 

lied based on her own personal belief; the prosecutor based her arguments on inferences 

made from their testimony at trial, including the logical inconsistency of their various 

accounts and the contradiction of their account with E.Z.’s recorded allegations.

In sum, the prosecutor did not commit misconduct when she argued that Rosa and 

Reyes had lied during their testimony or that the defense was fabricated.

D. Denigrating Defense Counsel

1. Background

After defense counsel made his closing argument, the prosecutor responded with a 

rebuttal, reiterating her argument that the woman that defense investigator Alvarez spoke 

to over the phone was not E.Z. The prosecutor stated: “I do not concede that the woman 

who called the defense investigator was [E.Z.]. What would have been the easiest way 

for you to assess that? Ah, yeah, if the investigator had actually recorded that 

conversation. But as you heard, it is the public defender’s office’s policy not to record. 

Interesting. [¶] My job as the prosecutor is to present to you evidence, evidence to 

convince you of the truth of the charge with an abiding conviction. [¶] The public 

defender’s office doesn’t have the same role. Now, they may not be able to, because of 
19

law, record a conversation without someone’s consent. But they don’t even ask. They 

don’t even ask.” 

The prosecutor also subsequently noted: “And keep in mind. Another way that 

would have been very easy for the defense investigator to affirmatively establish whether 

or not the person she was speaking to was [E.Z.] is to listen to the body-worn camera 

footage or any of the jail calls so that she could have heard her voice. And then 

compared it to the person on the other end of the line. But as you heard, it’s not the 

public defender’s office’s practice to give the defense investigators that information. 

And so she couldn’t even make that comparison.” 

The prosecutor further argued that it was her burden to present evidence to the 

jury, “but [the defense] didn’t call [E.Z.] either [as a witness]. The defense investigator 

never went out to Los Baños to even serve her with a subpoena. They can’t make the 

argument they just made if she testifies.” 

2. Analysis

Castaneda argues that the prosecutor improperly implied that defense counsel was 

complicit in fabricating a defense by deliberately avoiding investigatory actions that 

would have revealed incriminating evidence. 

“[P]rosecutorial comment upon a defendant’s failure ‘to introduce material 

evidence or to call logical witnesses’ is not improper. [Citations.]” (People v. Wash

(1993) 6 Cal.4th 215, 263 [argument that defendant had failed to adduce expert 

psychiatric testimony to support claim that he was depressed and suicidal during 

confession was not misconduct]; People v. Ratliff (1986) 41 Cal.3d 675, 691 [argument

that defendant had failed to provide any alibi testimony not misconduct].) Thus, it was 

not misconduct for the prosecutor to argue that the defense failed to introduce material 

evidence, such as a recording of the defense investigator’s interview with E.Z. that could 

have more conclusively ascertained the caller’s identity. It was also not misconduct for 

the prosecutor to call into question the defense’s decision not to secure E.Z. as a defense 
20

witness. Although some of the prosecutor’s comments about the defense’s failure to 

produce logical witnesses was proper, we agree that some of the prosecutor’s remarks 

about the policies of the public defender’s office were problematic.

We agree with Castaneda that in several instances, the prosecutor’s argument 

crossed the line between permissible and impermissible argument. In part, the 

prosecutor’s arguments pertaining to the policies employed by the public defender’s 

office and its role as compared to the prosecution is troublesome. The prosecutor noted

that the public defender’s office policy was not to record interviews and that her job as a 

prosecutor is to “present to you evidence, evidence to convince you of the truth of the 

charge with an abiding conviction.” The prosecutor then continued that “[t]he public 

defender’s office doesn’t have the same role.” The Attorney General argues that the 

prosecutor was merely arguing that the burden is on the prosecution to present evidence 

of an accused’s guilt and that the defense is not required to present a case or to prove

anything to the jury. 

Yet the Attorney General’s argument ignores the clear implication of the rest of 

the prosecutor’s observation that the public defender’s investigator did not even ask if she

could record the conversation with E.Z. Although we “ ‘ “ ‘do not lightly infer’ that the 

jury drew the most damaging rather than the least damaging meaning from the 

prosecutor’s statements” ’ ” (Collins, supra, 65 Cal.App.5th at p. 340), the prosecutor’s 

statement suggested that the public defender’s office, unlike the prosecution, is not 

interested in the truth of the matter and instead implemented policies to subvert its 

investigators’ collection of potentially incriminating evidence. Generally, it is 

misconduct to argue that “law enforcement has an obligation to ascertain ‘the true facts 

surrounding the commission of the crime’ [citation], which defense counsel do not.” 

(People v. Hawthorne (1992) 4 Cal.4th 43, 59 (Hawthorne), fn. omitted.) These 

statements “interject an extraneous generalization, potentially diverting the jury’s 

attention from the specifics upon which they must focus. Moreover, this generalization 
21

‘is not one that is shared by all judges or courts. It paints with too broad a brush.’ ” (Id.

at p. 60.) 

In this case, the prosecutor’s arguments on this point tended to suggest, by 

implication, that defense counsel was part of an effort to fabricate a defense—i.e., by 

remarking that it was “interesting” that the defense investigator, who was employed by 

the public defender’s office, did not record the conversation with E.Z. “It is generally 

improper for the prosecutor to accuse defense counsel of fabricating a defense [citations], 

or to imply that counsel is free to deceive the jury [citation].” (Bemore, supra, 22 Cal.4th 

at p. 846.) By suggesting that the public defender’s office has implemented policies that 

willfully prohibited the collection of potentially incriminating evidence, the prosecutor 

was necessarily implying that defense counsel was complicit in a false defense. (See

Seumanu, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 1338 [misconduct to impugn integrity of defense 

counsel, such as implying that defense counsel put forward a “sham defense”].)

However, even if we assume that the prosecutor’s statements constituted 

misconduct, reversal is not required unless Castaneda suffered prejudice. We discuss in 

part II.F., post, the prejudicial impact of the prosecutor’s remarks.

E. Burdening the Right to Discovery

1. Background

During closing arguments, the prosecutor made two references to Castaneda’s 

possible use of discovery to craft his defense. First, during her initial closing argument, 

the prosecutor argued that Castaneda, Reyes, and Rosa “have the police report. The jail 

calls. The body-worn camera footage. They have it all, which gives them the advantage 

of, ‘How do we craft a defense around this?’ ” 

And during her rebuttal, arguing that the woman who spoke to Alvarez was not 

E.Z., the prosecutor suggested that pretrial discovery had supplied Castaneda with E.Z.’s

driver’s license number. Defense counsel objected on the ground that this argument 

denigrated defense counsel. When the prosecutor clarified that she was referring to 
22

Castaneda, not to counsel, defense counsel asked to approach the bench with a different 

objection. After an unreported sidebar, the prosecutor continued her argument, 

describing that E.Z. had mentioned in a jail call that she had obtained a copy of the police 

report and that Castaneda likely had access to E.Z.’s personal identifying information

because of their relationship. 

2. Analysis

Castaneda argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct by arguing that he 

may have used information obtained through discovery to fabricate his defense. We 

conclude that no misconduct occurred.

Primarily, Castaneda relies on Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, 86-87 for 

the proposition that the right to discovery is rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment right to 

due process. In support of his argument that the prosecutor improperly burdened his 

constitutional rights with her remarks, Castaneda analogizes cases that have held that it is 

misconduct for a prosecutor to argue that a defendant’s exercise of constitutional rights 

like the right not to testify, the right to remain silent, or the right to counsel, is indicative 

of guilt. (See Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609, 615 [Fifth Amendment forbids 

comment by prosecution on the accused’s silence]; People v. Fondron (1984) 157 

Cal.App.3d 390, 400 [reference to defendant’s postarrest silence during closing argument 

was improper]; People v. Fabert (1982) 127 Cal.App.3d 604, 608-610 [defendant cannot 

be penalized for exercising Fifth Amendment right to remain silent in custody]; United 

States v. Prescott (9th Cir. 1978) 581 F.2d 1343, 1352 [evidence that defendant refused to 

consent to entry into home without a warrant deemed inadmissible].) 

Yet none of the constitutional rights cited above are at issue in this case. The 

prosecutor did not comment on Castaneda’s decision not to testify; the prosecutor argued

that the jury could reasonably infer based on the evidence that Castaneda had access to 

E.Z.’s personal identifying information based on his relationship with her and his access 

to the police reports. Indeed, during one of the jail calls between Castaneda and E.Z., 
23

E.Z. told Castaneda that she had obtained the police report and the two had a 

conversation about some of the charges listed therein. The argument that Castaneda had 

access to the police reports was therefore supported by the evidence, and the claim that 

Castaneda could have used that information to tailor his defense was a fair comment on 

the evidence. (See Seumanu, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 1343 [not misconduct when 

argument was fair comment on evidence].)

Moreover, not all arguments that reference a defendant’s constitutional rights 

constitute misconduct—in a somewhat analogous situation, the defendant in Portuondo v. 

Agard (2000) 529 U.S. 61 argued that the prosecutor committed misconduct by 

commenting on his presence at trial, which afforded him the ability to fabricate his 

testimony. (Id. at p. 65.) The defendant argued that the prosecutor’s comments

unlawfully burdened his Sixth Amendment right to be present at trial and be confronted 

with the witnesses against him. (Ibid.) The United States Supreme Court rejected this 

claim, concluding that it was appropriate to treat a testifying defendant the same as any 

other witness; thus, it was not inappropriate for a prosecutor to comment on the fact that 

“a defendant’s presence in the courtroom provides him a unique opportunity to tailor his 

testimony.” (Id. at p. 73.)

Accordingly, we conclude that that the prosecutor did not commit misconduct by 

referencing Castaneda’s discussion of the police report. 

F. Cumulative Error

Here, we have found two instances of error in the prosecutor’s comments: the 

prosecutor’s misstatement regarding the burden of proof and standard of reasonable 

doubt, and the prosecutor’s comments referencing the public defender’s role and its 

office’s policies regarding the collection of evidence. We conclude that even if we 

cumulate the impact of these errors, reversal is not required because the errors are 

harmless.
24

Even where a prosecutor commits error, reversal is not required unless a defendant 

has suffered prejudice. “Error with respect to prosecutorial misconduct is evaluated 

under Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 to the extent federal constitutional 

rights are implicated, and People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 [(Watson)], if only state 

law issues were involved.” (People v. Fernandez (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 540, 564; 

People v. Wallace (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1032, 1070.) Under Watson, reversal is required 

when it is “reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would 

have been reached in the absence of the error.” (Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d at p. 836.) As 

the prosecutor’s alleged misstatement regarding the reasonable doubt standard implicates 

Castaneda’s federal constitutional rights, we apply the Chapman harmless-beyond-areasonable-doubt standard to determine whether the cumulative effect of the two errors 

requires reversal of Castaneda’s convictions. (People v. Woods (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 

106, 117 (Woods).)

Considering the entirety of the record, we conclude that any error was harmless. 

Despite her later misstatement about the reasonable doubt standard, the prosecutor 

accurately referenced the reasonable doubt standard in her earlier comments before the 

jury. Defense counsel also countered the prosecutor’s remarks during his closing 

argument, noting that “[t]he prosecution has posed to you a false analogy where there 

[are] only two alternative versions of events.” Defense counsel also reiterated during his 

closing argument that it was the prosecutor’s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt 

that Castaneda was guilty of the charged offenses. Defense counsel argued that so long 

as the jury found the defense “reasonably possible,” that means that the prosecutor had 

not met her burden to remove all reasonable doubt. Additionally, the jury was instructed 

on the proper reasonable doubt standard, that the attorneys’ arguments were not evidence 

and that if there was any conflict between the attorneys’ arguments and the given 

instructions, the instructions controlled. We must presume that the jury followed the 

instructions. (People v. Chism (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1266, 1299.)
25

We likewise conclude that the prosecutor’s remarks about the public defender’s 

office and defense counsel’s role were not “so inflammatory as to distract the jury from a 

thorough and reasoned evaluation of the evidence.” (Hawthorne, supra, 4 Cal.4th at 

p. 61.) It was the defense theory and the veracity of defense witnesses (testifying or not)

that was the principal focus of the prosecutor’s criticism. The disparagement of the 

public defender’s office here—for its failure to discern, test, or forestall what the 

prosecutor permissibly characterized as a fabrication by Castaneda’s closest associates—

was collateral to the prosecutor’s legitimate line of attack. Accordingly, this is not a 

circumstance in which disparagement of Castaneda’s legal representative was a stratagem 

for inflaming the jury against an otherwise passive or unwitting client. Taken in context, 

the prosecutor’s comments as to Alvarez and her account of the public defender’s office 

policy and practice limiting her actions were largely focused on the defense’s seeming 

failure to anticipate rudimentary scrutiny of a recantation that was central to Castaneda’s 

chosen theory of defense. 

Moreover, we do not find this case to be close. Although E.Z. did not testify at 

trial, the prosecution presented multiple videos that captured her initial statements to the 

officers describing Castaneda’s assault against her. The jury was also presented with 

evidence of Castaneda’s prior history of violence against an intimate partner—one who

claimed not to recall any of his acts of violence despite her apparently spontaneous and 

immediate accounts of abuse. Although N.A. testified she did not remember any of the 

events, the jury received evidence of Castaneda’s associated convictions as well as 911 

recordings of an audibly distraught N.A. and corroborating statements of bystanders to 

the cinema vandalism and threats. 

Furthermore, on this record, the jury could have readily discounted Reyes’s

ostensible corroboration of E.Z.’s recantation. Given that E.Z. told Alvarez that she only 

knew the woman she fought with because they had mutual friends, Reyes’s status as 

E.Z.’s employer could only have undermined E.Z.’s attempt to exculpate Castaneda. 
26

Moreover, the jury could have reasonably discredited Reyes’s testimony, given her close 

relationship to both Rosa and Castaneda, and deemed implausible that neither Rosa nor 

Reyes would have recalled the fight with E.Z. or understood its significance in relation to 

Castaneda’s criminal case until shortly before Castaneda’s trial. 

Castaneda argues that jury’s acquitting him of assault by means of force likely to 

produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)) but convicting him of the lesser offense 

of simple assault indicates that the jury found some of the evidence unpersuasive in 

certain respects, thereby heightening the potential for prejudice from the prosecutor’s 

improper remarks. The sole logical inference we can draw from the verdicts, however, is 

that the jury credited E.Z.’s account of the assault to police at the scene and at the 

hospital but found inadequate the evidence that Castaneda, in committing the assault,

used force likely to produce great bodily injury. We are not persuaded that the jury 

verdicts reflect any doubt as to whether it was Castaneda who assaulted E.Z. Moreover, 

though it is true that the jury asked several questions during deliberations, none of the 

questions particularly suggested that this was a close case as to Castaneda’s underlying 

guilt.

9

For these reasons, we conclude that even though the prosecutor’s comments 

constituted misconduct, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (See Woods, 

supra, 146 Cal.App.4th 106, 117.) 

III. DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

9 For example, the jury initially asked for a transcript of the entire trial. In 

response, the trial court directed it to instead specify what transcripts it desired by witness 

or by subject matter. The jury, however, did not resubmit its request for transcripts. The 

jury also asked for a clarification about the differences between counts 1 and 2, and also 

asked for call logs between E.Z. and Castaneda the night of the offense and for 

information about when the prosecutor and defense counsel were assigned the case. 
____________________________

LIE, J.

WE CONCUR:

____________________________

GROVER, ACTING P.J.

_____________________________

WILSON, J.

People v. Castaneda

H048397