Opinion ID: 1215965
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Counsel's Penalty Phase Argument

Text: (13) Next, defendant contends that his counsel gave an inadequate closing argument at the penalty phase. Counsel, near the conclusion of his argument, told the jury that defendant had indicated he could live no longer with that beast from within (i.e., one of his multiple personalities), and counsel opined that if the jury concluded in its wisdom that death was the appropriate penalty, death might give defendant an escape once again by analogy the gift of life ... to be free from this horror that he and only he knows so well. For many of the same reasons previously set forth in our discussion regarding a similar guilt phase contention, we believe counsel's argument was a reasonable and tactical one, aimed at gaining the jury's sympathy for defendant, and was not tantamount to advocating his client's death. (Cf. People v. Deere (1985) 41 Cal.3d 353, 365-367 [222 Cal. Rptr. 13, 710 P.2d 925].) As counsel stated to the jury at an earlier point in his penalty argument, I'm suggesting that [defendant] be given ... a continued existence until death. Give us an opportunity to examine a person like that, determine whether we can help others who may be like him.... The record thus fails to support defendant's contention that counsel's penalty phase argument reflected his incompetence.