Opinion ID: 1180863
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Comment on Defendant's Future Dangerousness

Text: (93) During the guilt phase, the jury learned that defendant had told a friend, once you've killed, you can always kill again and that killing just doesn't bother him. The jury also learned that when one of the psychiatrists asked defendant if he would commit similar crimes in the future, defendant replied, probably. The prosecutor reminded the jury of these statements during the penalty phase closing argument and concluded, There is no indication that the defendant would not kill again if it served his purpose like, say, in prison. Amicus curiae asserts this constituted an impermissible reference to defendant's future dangerousness, and that actual violence while in custody is the only type of evidence sufficiently reliable to support an inference of future dangerousness. We have, however, never so restricted the type of evidence on which a future dangerousness argument may be based. On the contrary, in People v. Davenport, supra, 41 Cal.3d 247, we held that so long as [t]he prosecutor's comments [are] not based upon inadmissible evidence of expert testimony predicting future dangerousness such argument is entirely proper. ( Id., at p. 288; see also Miranda, supra, 44 Cal.3d at pp. 110-111.) The prosecution here did not rely on the predictions of an expert to support its claim of future dangerousness; instead, it relied on the circumstances of the crimes defendant committed and on statements defendant made to others. The manner in which the argument was presented was proper under Davenport and constituted nothing more than vigorous argument under Fosselman, supra, 33 Cal.3d at page 580. (94) (See fn. 25.) (See People v. Silva, supra, 45 Cal.3d 604, 639.) [24]