Opinion ID: 1447881
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Prosecutor's Argument on Rehabilitation

Text: At the start of her argument at the penalty phase, the prosecutor told the jury that there were several goals of sentencing: to protect society, to punish, and to rehabilitate. She described rehabilitation as one of the least important [goals] now because it has been relegated to the lower standard, at least a lower level because of problems in the past, adding, rehabilitating is not really an issue here because of the two considerations we're talking about. (30) Defendant now contends that this comment was prosecutorial misconduct because it told the jurors they were to ignore the evidence of defendant's potential for rehabilitation in prison. There was, however, no objection to this brief comment by the prosecutor. Even assuming that this comment amounted to misconduct, a timely objection by the defense and an admonition by the trial court informing the jury that it could consider defendant's performance in prison and the prospect of his rehabilitation there would have cured any harm. Accordingly, the issue is not properly before us. ( People v. Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d 1, 34.) If the issue had been preserved, we would find any misconduct harmless on this record.