Opinion ID: 1281413
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Trial Court's Duty to Intervene

Text: (50) Defendant argues that, regardless of whether counsel raised objections to the claimed instances of prosecutorial misconduct, the trial court had a sua sponte duty to intervene and seek to curb the misconduct. We do not agree. In rejecting such a claim, we observed in People v. Poggi (1988) 45 Cal.3d 306, at pages 335-336 [246 Cal. Rptr. 886, 753 P.2d 1082]: The authority upon which [defendant] relies for the court's duty to intervene sua sponte, People v. Perez (1962) 58 Cal.2d 229, 250 [23 Cal. Rptr. 569, 373 P.2d 617, 3 A.L.R.3d 946], is no longer valid in light of our rejection of its legal underpinnings (i.e., the `close case' exception) in People v. Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d at pages 27-34. And in any event, the two instances of misconduct we have found in this case do not compare in seriousness or prejudicial impact to the gross misconduct committed in Perez.