Opinion ID: 2518032
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Manner in Which Victim Was Killed

Text: Defendant claims the prosecutor committed misconduct by arguing facts not in evidence regarding the manner in which the victim was killed. The prosecutor argued that the victim was shot by defendant while he was either on his knees pleading for mercy or running away in fear from this defendant. Defense counsel objected. The trial court did not rule, but stated, The jury has already heard previously that statements of counsel are not in evidence. The prosecutor's argument was proper. Although it is misconduct to misstate facts, the prosecutor enjoys wide latitude in commenting on the evidence, including the reasonable inferences and deductions that can be drawn therefrom. ( People v. Hamilton (2009) 45 Cal.4th 863, 928 [89 Cal.Rptr.3d 286, 200 P.3d 898].) The prosecutor's comments were reasonable inferences from the record. Dr. William Sherry had testified that Rose had small abrasions on the back and knuckles of the left hand, a scratch on the right knee, and an abrasion just below the knee. Assuming Rose was standing with his hands at his sides and looking straight ahead, the trajectory of the gunshot was back to front, slightly left to right, and slightly downward. Dr. Sherry said that the trajectory was consistent with the victim kneeling and the shooter standing, which might also account for the abrasion on the victim's knee. In response to defense counsel's question, Dr. Sherry acknowledged that the trajectory of the bullet was consistent with the victim's head having been tilted backward. Defendant claims the prosecutor argued, in effect, that her scenarios were the only two ways in which the shooting could have occurred. She did not do so. Nor is there a reasonable likelihood the jury understood the prosecutor's remarks in such a manner. ( People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 970 [77 Cal.Rptr.2d 25, 959 P.2d 183].) The jury heard Dr. Sherry testify on cross-examination that there are probably millions of different possibilities depending upon the position of the weapon and the position of the body and specifically the head of the person who was struck. Moreover, in response to defendant's objection during argument, the trial court reiterated that the comments made by counsel were not to be considered as evidence. As to the victim's plea for mercy while on his knees, the evidence indicates that Rose was kidnapped and held against his will for four hours. Rose was eventually taken to a dark, distant, and fairly secluded location. It is not unreasonable to infer that in these circumstances, the victim would know he was about to be killed and would have pleaded for mercy. (See People v. Bennett (2009) 45 Cal.4th 577, 617 [88 Cal.Rptr.3d 131, 199 P.3d 535]; People v. Navarette (2003) 30 Cal.4th 458, 520 [133 Cal.Rptr.2d 89, 66 P.3d 1182].)