Opinion ID: 2518032
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Comments Regarding Vengeance

Text: Defendant argues the prosecutor engaged in misconduct when she inappropriately called for vengeance from the jury. The prosecutor told the jury that vengeance plays a legitimate role in the criminal justice system. She quoted from an unidentified source, stating: `The idea of punishment is unintelligible if severed from the idea of retribution, which is inseparable from the concept of vengeance which is an expression of society's anger. If you have no anger, you have no justice. The society incapable of sustained focused anger in the form of controlled vengeance is decadent.' Quoting further, she urged that society is protected and strengthened by `administering punishments that express and nourish through controlled indignation the vigor of our values.' (15) Because an admonition would have cured the harm, defendant has forfeited his claim by failing to object. ( People v. Zambrano, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1177.) Moreover, it is without merit. The prosecutor's remarks were similar to those made by the prosecutor in Zambrano, and our reasoning in that case applies with equal force here. We noted in Zambrano that it is not error to argue that the death penalty, where imposed in deserving cases, is a valid form of community retribution or vengeancei.e., punishment exacted by the state, under controlled circumstances, and on behalf of all its members, in lieu of the right of personal retaliation. ( Id. at p. 1178.) As in Zambrano, the prosecutor's comments did not seek to invoke untethered passions, or to dissuade jurors from making individual decisions, but only to assert that the community, acting on behalf of those injured, has the right to express its values by imposing the severest punishment for the most aggravated crimes. ( Id. at p. 1179.) No misconduct occurred. Continuing her argument about the social contract, the prosecutor focused on the Rose family. Defendant argues the prosecutor improperly informed the jury that the Rose family wanted a death verdict. [23] The prosecutor argued: Now, the Rose family is part of this social contract. They have given up their right to take personal vengeance on the defendant because they're law abiding. In return, they're entitled to action of the state that serves the same purpose. They're entitled to vengeance, plain and simple. They're not allowed to get him themselves. They're not allowed to take this defendant to Clybourn and Chandler in North Hollywood and shoot a bullet in his head. They gave up their right to vengeance like we all did because we are law abiding, but we owe them something in return and something they are not entitled to get on their own. (16) It is improper for the victim's family to express their opinion regarding the proper verdict. ( Booth v. Maryland (1987) 482 U.S. 496, 508-509 [96 L.Ed.2d 440, 107 S.Ct. 2529].) Although Booth was overruled in part, the Supreme Court left intact its holding that the admission of a victim's family members' characterizations and opinions about the crime, the defendant, and the appropriate sentence violates the Eighth Amendment. ( Payne v. Tennessee (1991) 501 U.S. 808, 830, fn. 2 [115 L.Ed.2d 720, 111 S.Ct. 2597].) Defendant acknowledges the Rose family never gave testimony requesting the death penalty, but claims the prosecutor's argument conveyed this information, and thus referred to facts not in evidence or implied the existence of facts known only to the prosecutor. Again, defendant's failure to object and request an admonishment forfeits review of his claim. Even if the prosecutor's argument could be understood as representing the family's view, any error was harmless. The prosecutor's remarks were somewhat ambiguous and constituted only a small portion of her larger argument, which focused primarily on the factors in aggravation and mitigation.