Opinion ID: 2517801
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Comments regarding lack of mental illness evidence

Text: In the midst of his argument that no mitigating factors applied, the prosecutor discussed factor (h) (§ 190.3, factor (h)), i.e., whether the defendant's capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was impaired as a result of mental disease or defect, or the [e]ffects of intoxication. In that regard, he told the jury you have heard not one shred of evidence from a psychologist or psychiatrist or family member or anybody of any mental impairment on the part of the defendant. You heard no evidence of any mental disease or effect of intoxication, not from the defendant, not from anybody. Defendant did not object. Later, when discussing factor (k) (§ 190.3, factor (k)), i.e., whether there was [a]ny other circumstance which extenuates the gravity of the crime even though it is not a legal excuse for the crime, the prosecutor remarked, No evidence of unhappy childhood. No evidence of drug or alcohol problems. No evidence of any mental problems.  (Italics added.) Again, defendant raised no objection. Defendant claims the prosecutor thus willfully misled the jury, because he knew there was evidence of defendant's mental illnessthe born insane letter he had received from defendant's sister Terri Zambrano. (See discussion, ante. ) The prosecutor's misconduct, defendant asserts, violated his federal constitutional rights to a fair penalty determination, effective assistance of counsel, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, due process, and equal protection of the law. (U.S. Const., 5th, 6th, 8th & 14th Amends.) The claim must be rejected. Once again, defendant's failure to object at trial to the remarks now challenged forfeits the claim on appeal. (E.g., People v. Hinton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 839, 903, 38 Cal.Rptr.3d 149, 126 P.3d 981 ( Hinton ).) In any event, the prosecutor committed no misconduct. He merely observed, accurately, that the jury had heard no evidence on this subject. While the prosecutor may not misstate the record, [i]n general, ... [he] may comment on the record as it actually stands. ( People v. Keenan (1988) 46 Cal.3d 478, 509, 250 Cal.Rptr. 550, 758 P.2d 1081 ( Keenan ).) Defendant had obtained a copy of the letter before the end of the guilt trial, but did not attempt to introduce it, or any related mental evidence, at the penalty trial. The record contains no explanation for the omission. (See Keenan, supra, 46 Cal.3d 478, 509, 250 Cal.Rptr. 550, 758 P.2d 1081.) Defendant now suggests the prosecutor's delay in turning it over prevented him from conducting a timely investigation of the allegations it contained, and the letter's author had, in any event, since died. But defendant had the letter no later than April 12, 1993, when he moved for a mistrial on Brady grounds, citing the prosecutor's failure to disclose it. The defense did not begin to present its penalty case until May 4, 1993, almost three weeks later. When it denied a guilt mistrial, the court specifically said defendant was free to submit the letter to a psychiatrist for whatever help it might be at the penalty phase. And, despite Terri Zambrano's death, there were indications that other members of defendant's family were still available to provide information about his mental health. Yet counsel sought no continuance to pursue the matter. The record thus provides no ground to conclude the prosecutor's comment was unfair. Moreover, the trial court gave a standard instruction that statements by attorneys are not evidence. Under the circumstances, we find no misconduct of the sort defendant suggests. ( Keenan, supra, 46 Cal.3d 478, 510, 250 Cal.Rptr. 550, 758 P.2d 1081, fn. omitted.)