Opinion ID: 2521277
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Prosecutorial MisconductOther Claims

Text: Defendant argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct during his argument to the first penalty phase jury by stating that any individual juror could stop the imposition of the death penalty ... because it has to be a unanimous verdict. Even if we agreed with defendant's contention that the prosecutor's argument was erroneous, he would not be entitled to the remedy he now seeks namely, the reversal of the death penalty judgment. As with defendant's claim relating to the first penalty jury's request to address defendant (see ante, 120 Cal. Rptr.2d at pp. 489-92, 47 P.3d at pp. 273-75), because the first jury did not reach a verdict at the penalty phase, and the second jury returned a verdict that was unaffected by the alleged error upon which defendant now relies, defendant already has been afforded a new penalty trial free from this alleged error. Accordingly, even if we were to conclude that the prosecutor's argument was improper, reversal of the judgment would not be warranted. Defendant further contends the prosecutor committed misconduct by inviting the jurors to consider what happened to the victims and to put themselves in their shoes. Defendant focuses upon the following portion of the prosecutor's argument: Think about the sheer terror, think about Eddie Keith, who was driving down the road, looking for the next off-ramp, probably counting the money in his head already that they're going to make on this drug deal, when he hears gunshots go off in the car, and he says, `Oh, shit.' He realized something's happening and then he gets it in the back of the head. [¶] Put yourself in Jeff DeRouen's shoes when he hears that loud bang in the back seat and he turns to see what's going on and he gets it in the side of the head. You have to look and ask yourself what type of person would do this? What type of person would snuff out two young lives like you and I swat a fly, that fast? Defendant forfeited this issue by failing to object on this ground at trial. ( People v. Wrest, supra, 3 Cal.4th 1088, 1105, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 511, 839 P.2d 1020.) But in any event, the prosecutor's argument was proper. We repeatedly have held that it is proper at the penalty phase for a prosecutor to invite the jurors to put themselves in the place of the victims and imagine their suffering. ( People v. Carpenter, supra, 15 Cal.4th 312, 415, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 935 P.2d 708; People v. Medina (1995) 11 Cal.4th 694, 778, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 165, 906 P.2d 2; People v. Wash, supra, 6 Cal.4th 215, 263-264, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 421, 861 P.2d 1107; People v. Haskett (1982) 30 Cal.3d 841, 863-864, 180 Cal.Rptr. 640, 640 P.2d 776.)