Opinion ID: 2608844
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Comment on Unavailability of Witnesses

Text: Defendant asserts the trial court improperly sustained a prosecution objection to a comment by defense counsel during closing argument. The contention lacks merit. During closing argument, defense counsel observed the prosecution had called only one witness to the shooting, Billy B., despite the fact that there were at least three other potential witnesses, Tina Topping, Christina Menchaca and Marlin Lewis. Counsel then observed: And I think that the fact that those people are absent when they are available is something that you should give great consideration to. The prosecutor objected to the statement, noting that there was no evidence in the record indicating the witnesses were available. The trial court sustained the objection. Counsel then stated more accurately: There's no showing on the basis of the evidence that any of those people are unavailable. And no reason has been given for their not being here. Thereafter, in rebuttal, the prosecutor suggested that perhaps Menchaca, Lewis and Topping had not testified because maybe they don't want to be in a position where they testify against [defendant].... Counsel's objection to this statement was overruled. The prosecutor's objection was properly sustained. Nothing in the record indicated whether Christina Menchaca, Tina Topping or Marlin Lewis were available. (13) It is axiomatic that counsel may not state or assume facts in argument that are not in evidence. Defendant's reliance on People v. Ford (1988) 45 Cal.3d 431 [247 Cal. Rptr. 121, 754 P.2d 168, 76 A.L.R.4th 785] is misplaced. There, we held that a codefendant who has not actually exercised his privilege against self-incrimination is not unavailable and therefore the prosecutor did not err in commenting on defendant's failure to call several codefendants who might have substantiated his alibi defense. Ford does not, however, permit the prosecutor or defense counsel to state as a fact that a codefendant is available as a witness when there is no evidence to substantiate the statement. Defendant also contends the trial court erred in overruling counsel's objection to the prosecutor's comment that maybe they [i.e., Marlin Lewis, Christina Menchaca and Tina Topping] don't want to be in a position where they testify against [defendant]. Defendant asserts the prosecutor improperly implied that Menchaca, Topping, and Lewis did not testify because they were afraid of defendant. The statement was ambiguous; it could just as easily have implied that Topping, Menchaca, and Lewis did not wish to testify against defendant because he was a friend. In any event, though we agree the prosecutor's remark was unsupported by the record evidence, we cannot conceive of how so brief and tangential a comment could have affected the verdict.