Opinion ID: 2517801
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Comments on absence of family witnesses and remorse evidence

Text: As mitigating character witnesses, defendant called persons who knew him in his adult life as a contractor, computer enthusiast, community activist, and parent. No family members were presented. There was evidence that his parents were deceased, and that he wished to spare his children any involvement in the trial, but that he had a living brother and sister. In his closing argument, the prosecutor noted defendant's omission to call family and childhood witnesses, remarking, I ask you, who really knows someone, acquaintances or family, friends, brothers and sisters, the people you grew up with in your youth? [¶] They really know you; and they were not called, [l]adies and [g]entlemen. You did not hear from them. You have to ask yourself what that means and why that was. The defense raised no objection. On appeal, defendant urges the prosecutor's argument unfairly placed pressure on him to produce a certain kind of mitigating evidence. The failure to object, where an admonition would have cured any harm, forfeits the point. The argument is meritless in any event. The prosecutor never suggested defendant had a legal burden to present family members in mitigation. He merely commented, as is permitted, on defendant's failure to call logical witnesses. (E.g., Dennis, supra, 17 Cal.4th 468, 549, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 680, 950 P.2d 1035; Wash, supra, 6 Cal.4th 215, 262-263, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 421, 861 P.2d 1107.) The prosecutor also argued there was no evidence defendant felt remorse for his crimes. The prosecutor said, There is something else you can consider to see if the defendant deserves sympathy, and that's remorse? [¶] Is there any evidence that the defendant has repented or has expressed remorse? [¶] I submit, [l]adies and [g]entlemen, there has been none, no evidence at all that he has ever repented, ever expressed remorse for what he did to Luis Reyna in the desecration of his body, no evidence that he ever admitted the truth of what he did to Luis Reyna or has ever accepted responsibility for it. Defendant did not object. On appeal, defendant first claims these remarks constituted comment on his failure to testify at the penalty phase, in violation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. ( Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106 ( Griffin ); see Estelle v. Smith (1981) 451 U.S. 454, 462, 101 S.Ct. 1866, 68 L.Ed.2d 359 [5th Amend. privilege applies at sentencing phase of capital trial].) The claim was not forfeited by his failure to object, he urges, because an admonition could not have cured the harm. Even if so (but see Bemore, supra, 22 Cal.4th 809, 854, 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 840, 996 P.2d 1152), his Griffin claim fails on the merits. The prosecutor did not comment that defendant had failed to take the stand to express remorse; he simply said there was no evidence that defendant had ever expressed remorse. We have consistently found such penalty phase argument permissible under Griffin , even where it faults the defendant for failing to confess guilt and express remorse during his guilt phase testimony. (E.g., People v. Boyette (2002) 29 Cal.4th 381, 455, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 544, 58 P.3d 391 ( Boyette ); Bemore, supra, 22 Cal.4th 809, 854-855, 94 Cal. Rptr.2d 840, 996 P.2d 1152; People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 691, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 782, 937 P.2d 213 ( Holt ); People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 724, 55 Cal. Rptr.2d 26, 919 P.2d 640; People v. Taylor (1990) 52 Cal.3d 719, 744, 276 Cal.Rptr. 391, 801 P.2d 1142.) We do so again. Defendant also argues that the prosecutor's argument improperly implied he deserved pity or sympathy only if he had expressed remorse. The claim is forfeited for failure to object on that ground at trial. In any event, it lacks merit. The prosecutor only said that something else  (italics added) the jury could consider sympatheticallyan expression of remorsewas absent. He never stated or implied the jury could not or should not decide defendant deserved sympathy unless it found he had expressed remorse. Finally, defendant contends the prosecutor argued that the absence of sympathetic evidence was an aggravating factor. Again the claim is forfeited for failure to object, and is also meritless. The prosecutor did not state or imply that defendant's failure to express or show remorse in the wake of his crimes was a factor in aggravation. He urged only that remorse was absent as a possible mitigating factor. Such argument is permissible. ( Cook, supra, 39 Cal.4th 566, 611, 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 22, 139 P.3d 492; Jurado, supra, 38 Cal.4th 72, 141, 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 319, 131 P.3d 400; Mendoza, supra, 24 Cal.4th 130, 187, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 485, 6 P.3d 150.) No misconduct occurred.