Opinion ID: 844263
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Asserted Attack upon Defense Counsel

Text: The prosecutor commented on photographs that defense counsel had introduced of the scene of the Skyles and Price murders. He argued the photos were misleading and deceptive in terms of what a person standing in that position would see, and that they did not accurately show what you would see based upon those lighting conditions. He urged the jurors to use their common sense to realize that photographs taken at another time and under unspecified lighting conditions were not necessarily an accurate representation of what an individual would have seen on the night of the shooting. He argued that Alejandro Garcia, the gas station clerk on duty the night of the shooting, had said as much in his testimony when he was asked about the accuracy of the photos and answered, that's not what you'd see if you were a person standing there. Gonzales contends the prosecutor committed misconduct with these remarks because they implied that defense counsel had presented false evidence to the jury. As an initial matter, the claim is forfeited for failure to object below. Turning to the merits, we see no misconduct. A prosecuting attorney `has the right to fully state his views as to what the evidence shows and to urge whatever conclusion he deems proper.' ( People v. Panah, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 463, quoting People v. Lewis (1990) 50 Cal.3d 262, 283 [266 Cal.Rptr. 834, 786 P.2d 892].) The prosecutor did not state or imply that defense counsel had presented false evidence to the jury; rather, the prosecutor permissibly argued that the photographs could not substitute for the perceptions of the witnesses who were present during the shooting.