Title: P. v. Richardson
Citation: 43 Cal. 4th 959 original opinion 44 Cal. 4th 385a modification
Docket Number: S029588m
State: California
Issuer: California Supreme Court
Date: July 16, 2008

Filed 7/16/08  
 
 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
THE PEOPLE, 
) 
 
 
)  
S029588 
 
Plaintiff and Respondent, 
) 
 
 
)  
Tulare County 
 
v. 
)  
Super. Ct. No. 27383 
 
 
) 
CHARLES KEITH RICHARDSON, 
) 
 
) 
 
Defendant and Appellant. 
) 
___________________________________ ) 
 
MODIFICATION OF OPINION 
 
THE COURT: 
The opinion herein, filed on May 22, 2008, appearing at 43 Cal.4th 959, is 
modified as follows: 
1.  The first sentence of part c. on page 980 is modified to read:   
DNA in semen found on a rectal slide taken from April was found to be 
consistent with Steven Brown’s DNA.  
2.  On page 1017, before the heading “3. Sufficiency of the Evidence for 
Lewd Conduct,” the following subheading and paragraph are inserted: 
c.  Comparison of Photographs 
Defendant also argues the prosecutor committed misconduct in closing 
argument because he “improperly asked the jury to second-guess the experts by 
becoming experts themselves and compare the photographs of the pubic hair 
evidence to decide for themselves whether they matched.”  Defendant failed to 
object to the prosecutor’s argument on this ground and thus failed to preserve the 
issue for appeal.  (People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 820.)  Were we to reach 
the issue, we would find no error.  The permissible scope of closing argument is 
 
 
broad, and the prosecutor’s recommendation that the jury should use its common 
sense when both evaluating conflicting expert evidence and examining the 
photographs fell well within the boundaries of permissible argument. 
This modification does not affect the judgment.