Opinion ID: 2582262
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Discrepancy Between Opening Statement and Defendant's Testimony

Text: The prosecutor argued that a discrepancy between defense counsel's opening statement and defendant's testimony demonstrated that defense counsel does not fully accept and believe his client's testimony. The court sustained a defense objection. When asked to give an admonition, the court told the jury that counsel's statements are not to be construed as evidence in this matter. And I think that you may proceed along that basis, [the prosecutor], without references to what [defense counsel] may believe. Without further objection, the prosecutor continued to point out discrepancies between defense counsel's statements and defendant's actual testimony. During the rebuttal argument, the prosecutor said, I ask you why was there no argument suggesting to you that his statement was in fact believable? Why was there no attempt to explain to you meaningfully why this person should be believed when we have him lying boldface already on the tape recorder? And how can we say disregard that but believe this? Defendant contends the prosecutor improperly argued that defense counsel did not believe his client. It is improper for the prosecutor to argue to the jury that defense counsel does not believe in his client's [case]. ( People v. Thompson (1988) 45 Cal.3d 86, 112, 246 Cal.Rptr. 245, 753 P.2d 37.) But the court sustained defendant's objection and, at defense counsel's request, admonished the jury. Any prejudice was cured. ( People v. Jones (1997) 15 Cal.4th 119, 168, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 386, 931 P.2d 960 ( Jones ).) Defendant contends the admonition was inadequate. However, he did not seek any additional admonition. The admonition, including the court's pointed comment that the prosecutor may proceed without reference to what defense counsel may believe, adequately informed the jury that such reference was improper and should be ignored. Defendant also claims that the prosecutor repeated his misconduct in his later argument in rebuttal. Because he did not object, this claim is not cognizable. In any event, the prosecutor never again argued that defense counsel disbelieved his client. He merely commented on discrepancies between defense counsel's opening statement and defendant's actual testimony, and pointed out gaps in defense counsel's argument. It is no misconduct to pointedly highlight, as the prosecutor did here, the contradictions in a defendant's case. ( People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701, 753, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 203, 976 P.2d 754.)