Opinion ID: 2587254
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: References to matters outside the record

Text: Defendant contends that the prosecutor committed misconduct by arguing factual matters that were not part of the evidence presented. A prosecutor commits misconduct by referring in argument to matters outside the record. ( People v. Pinholster, supra, 1 Cal.4th 865, 948, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 765, 824 P.2d 571.) Nonetheless, a prosecutor `may state matters not in evidence that are common knowledge, or are illustrations drawn from common experience, history, or literature.' [Citation.] ( People v. Sandoval, supra, 4 Cal.4th 155, 193, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 342, 841 P.2d 862.) In addition, the prosecution has broad discretion to state its views regarding which reasonable inferences may or may not be drawn from the evidence. ( People v. Mitcham, supra, 1 Cal.4th 1027, 1052, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 230, 824 P.2d 1277.) Arguments by the prosecutor that otherwise might be deemed improper do not constitute misconduct if they fall within the proper limits of rebuttal to the arguments of defense counsel. ( People v. Sandoval, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 193, 14 Cal. Rptr.2d 342, 841 P.2d 862.) Defendant asserts that the prosecutor referred to several facts not supported by the record. The prosecutor's references, however, do find support from the evidence or permissible inferences drawn from it. The prosecutor stated that when defendant shot Officer Osmond, he was a felon and knew he was not permitted to carry a firearm. Defendant testified he knew persons convicted of a felony in California were not permitted to carry guns. Defendant was a convicted felon at the time he shot the officer. The prosecutor stated that defendant was not intoxicated at the time of that shooting. Neither defendant, nor the officers who variously described the incident, testified that defendant was intoxicated. The prosecutor also stated that some of the stab wounds inflicted on Fellows would have been fatal almost immediately, but that defendant continued to stab her repeatedly. The medical examiner testified that certain wounds would have been immediately fatal, but that nonetheless additional wounds were inflicted. Defendant asserts that the prosecutor offered unfounded conjecture concerning defendant's behavior. The prosecutor commented that defendant did not receive psychiatric care in prison because he sought medication, whereas most therapy treatment consisted of speaking with a therapist. Contrary to defendant's assertions, these comments did not denigrate drug therapy but merely suggested defendant was not amenable to accepting a form of treatment that was more readily available. The prosecutor commented that by the time defendant attempted to commit suicide, he had been convicted of an offense and had received probation. This comment was made during argument in rebuttal to defendant's assertion that he never had received any leniency. Defendant asserts that the prosecutor made comments deprecating his contributions to society or characterizing them as useless. In rebuttal to defense evidence that defendant had served on the Men's Advisory Council, the prosecutor emphasized the detail that he had served as its secretary, arguing that such a position generally does not entail engaging in a leadership role but rather in tak[ing] notes. It was permissible for the prosecutor in rebuttal to question the actual level of defendant's involvement, in view of defendant's position in the organization. In rebuttal to the argument that if permitted to live in prison defendant would teach the hearing impaired, the prosecutor wondered how many hearing-impaired individuals would be in prison and whether other provisions already would have been made for them by the penal institution. This argument was within the permissible limits of rebuttal to defendant's argument. In addition, it does not appear that these statements resulted in prejudice to defendant. Although the prosecutor appeared to dwell on the subject of defendant's apparent sexual preferences, which were not strictly germane to the effort to impeach his credibility, neither any such error, nor any other, has been shown to have significantly influenced the fairness of defendant's trial or detrimentally affected the jury's determination of the appropriate penalty, so as to warrant reversal of the penalty judgment. ( People v. Sanchez, supra, 12 Cal.4th 1, 83, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 843, 906 P.2d 1129.)