Opinion ID: 1277356
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Failure to Present an Effective Closing Argument

Text: Defense counsel's closing argument urged the jury to reject the prosecution's theories that the murder of Diane either was premeditated or occurred during the commission of a rape. Defense counsel instead acknowledged that defendant was present at the crime scene with the victims, and that circumstantial and physical evidence linked defendant to the crimes. He further acknowledged the reasonableness of finding that defendant had committed a sodomy or attempted sodomy, but not rape or attempted rape. In so doing, counsel urged the jury to find defendant guilty of second degree felony murder under the law as it applied at defendant's trial  thereby precluding penalty phase proceedings. (See 85 Cal.Rptr.2d p. 152, fn. 2, 976 P.2d p. 703, fn. 2, ante. ) On appeal, defendant contends that trial counsel's strategy improperly led the jury to return a finding of true with respect to the special circumstance of sodomy, ensuring that the case would proceed to a penalty phase, and thereby depriving defendant of the effective assistance of counsel. We have rejected similar claims in other cases involving concessions made by defense counsel in closing argument, where the incriminating evidence was strong and counsel offered some other choice in the defendant's favor. We do so here, as well. (See, e.g., People v. Bolin, supra, 18 Cal.4th 297, 334-335, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 412, 956 P.2d 374 [rejecting a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel related to counsel's concession of some measure of culpability, as a valid tactical choice given the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt]; People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1186-1187, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 832 P.2d 146 [rejecting a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel related to counsel's concession in closing argument that defendant had been present at the scene of the crime, repudiating the defendant's alibi testimony]; see also People v. Wade (1988) 44 Cal.3d 975, 988, 244 Cal.Rptr. 905, 750 P.2d 794 [In light of the overwhelming evidence of his client's guilt, trial counsel had little choice but to candidly acknowledge guilt, concede the heinous nature of the offense, and concentrate instead on convincing the jury of the legitimacy of defendant's mental defenses.]; People v. Ratliff (1986) 41 Cal.3d 675, 697, 224 Cal.Rptr. 705, 715 P.2d 665 [Counsel's tactical decision to argue a particular personal view of the evidence, indicating that his client may have committed only a lesser offense, is not akin to pleading guilty to that offense.]; People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264, 293, 168 Cal.Rptr. 603, 618 P.2d 149 [`[G]ood trial tactics demanded complete candor' with the jury.].) Although it is true that counsel's closing argument was not lengthy  13 pages in the reporter's transcript  the record on appeal discloses nothing to suggest that counsel's decision to thus limit his argument was unreasonable. To the contrary, the overwhelming nature of the evidence against defendant left counsel with little opportunity to mount a persuasive summation. The surviving victim had testified in graphic detail regarding defendant's involvement in the charged offenses. Defendant's fingerprint was found on a beer bottle recovered from the remote crime scene. Other physical and circumstantial evidence linked defendant to the crimes. In view of the evidence presented against defendant, trial counsel reasonably could have concluded that challenging the evidence more vigorously in his argument risked alienating the jury and perhaps lessening his odds of success at the penalty phase. (See People v. Bolin, supra, 18 Cal.4th 297, 335, 75 Cal. Rptr.2d 412, 956 P.2d 374 [Since counsel could also reasonably anticipate having to conduct a penalty phase, it also allowed him to preserve his credibility in arguing mitigation.]; People v. Cox (1991) 53 Cal.3d 618, 661-662, 280 Cal.Rptr. 692, 809 P.2d 351 [rejecting a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel where, for tactical reasons, defendant's attorney declined at the guilt phase to present any evidence or argument in response to the evidence presented by the prosecutor].) Counsel's decision to acknowledge defendant's culpability  but to a lesser extent than that urged by the prosecution, in an effort to spare his client from a penalty phase  was not a tactical choice that could not be satisfactorily explained. No deficiency appears. [28]