Opinion ID: 2587254
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Comment on defendant's change in appearance

Text: Defendant contends that the prosecutor committed misconduct by suggesting to the jury that defendant deliberately had changed his appearance in order to raise doubts as to his identity as the perpetrator. According to defendant, that constituted misconduct because the prosecutor had knowledge, through her attendance at various preliminary proceedings, of the medical necessity for work performed on defendant's teeth, and of the circumstance that defendant's life in prison resulted in changes to his hair style and weight. Prior to trial, in proceedings attended by the prosecutor, defendant repeatedly requested dental work, initially to remove several teeth including his gold front tooth, and subsequently to acquire replacement dentures. During trial the prosecutor asked several witnesses in what respects defendant's present appearance was different from what it had been at the time of the murder. The witnesses testified that defendant's hair was shorter with more gray, that his facial hair was different, that the frames on defendant's glasses were darker, that he had lost 30 to 40 pounds, and that his front tooth no longer had a gold cap. Pursuant to the prosecutor's request, defendant displayed his front teeth to the jury. Near the conclusion of the guilt phase, the defense requested that the trial court take judicial notice of the circumstance that defendant's dental work had been medically necessary rather than cosmetic in nature. The trial court explained that the court could verify only that defendant had requested dental treatment and not whether it had been medically necessary. Defense counsel requested that defendant's dental records be introduced into evidence. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, defendant's dental records, revealing that three teeth had been removed due to decay, were admitted at trial. During closing argument, defense counsel urged that defendant had not done anything to change his appearance. Defense counsel advised the jurors they would be able to review defendant's dental records and determine that his gold tooth had been replaced because his teeth were rotting. Defense counsel explained that defendant had been able to have his hair cut, and had lost weight because jail food isn't wonderful. Under the federal Constitution, to be reversible, a prosecutor's improper comments must `so infect[] the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.' ( Darden v. Wainwright (1986) 477 U.S. 168, 181, 106 S.Ct. 2464, 91 L.Ed.2d 144; Donnelly v. DeChristoforo (1974) 416 U.S. 637, 643, 94 S.Ct. 1868, 40 L.Ed.2d 431; People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 969, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 25, 959 P.2d 183.) `But conduct by a prosecutor that does not render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair is prosecutorial misconduct under state law only if it involves `the use of deceptive or reprehensible methods to attempt to persuade either the court or the jury.'` [Citations.] ( People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 858, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 857, 978 P.2d 15.) `As a general rule a defendant may not complain on appeal of prosecutorial misconduct unless in a timely fashionโand on the same groundโthe defendant [requested] an assignment of misconduct and [also] requested that the jury be admonished to disregard the impropriety. [Citation.]' ( People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal.4th 225, 284, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 682,1 P.3d 3; People v. Jenkins, supra, 22 Cal.4th 900, 1023, 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, 997 P.2d 1044.) If an objection has not been made, `the point is reviewable only if an admonition would not have cured the harm caused by the prosecutor's misconduct.' [Citations.] ( People v. Earp, supra, 20 Cal.4th 826, 858, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 857, 978 P.2d 15.) In the present case, because any harm could have been cured by an admonition to the jury, defendant's failure timely to object and request the court to admonish the jury precludes his claim of misconduct. (See People v. Sandoval (1992) 4 Cal.4th 155, 185, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 342, 841 P.2d 862 [any misconduct in referring to the defendant's courtroom appearance as a ploy could have been cured by admonition]; People v. Visciotti, supra, 2 Cal.4th 1, 80, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 495, 825 P.2d 388 [any misconduct in questioning the defendant about his changed appearance could have been cured by admonition].) Further, even had the claim not been waived, it would fail on the merits. When, as in the present case, the claim is based upon comments made by the prosecutor before the jury, the question is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury construed or applied any of the complained-of remarks in an objectionable fashion. [Citation.] ( People v. Berryman (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1048, 1072, 25 Cal. Rptr.2d 867, 864 P.2d 40, overruled on another ground in People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 823, fn. 1, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 656, 952 P.2d 673; People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629, 663 & fn. 8, 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 564, 828 P.2d 705.) The prosecutor apparently wished to explain that defendant's appearance had changed between the time of the murder and the time of trial, and therefore witnesses would describe him differently from his appearance at trial. As a general matter, such argument would not be improper. (See People v. Ashmus (1991) 54 Cal.3d 932, 974, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 112, 820 P.2d 214 [defendant's alteration of appearance between the time of incident and the time of trial is relevant to the issue of identity].) The prosecutor also apparently wished to convey, and it is reasonably likely the jury apprehended, that defendant deliberately altered his appearance in order to raise a doubt that he was the distinctively attired and coifed person described by a number of the witnesses. As a general matter, that argument was not improper, because it related to the issues of identity and consciousness of guilt. The specific suggestion that defendant arranged for dental work to be done to accomplish that end would have been improper had the prosecutor known that defendant was motivated solely by medical necessity to obtain the dental treatment, but it does not appear that was the case. When we consider the challenged comments as a whole, we cannot conclude that the prosecutor used a deceptive or reprehensible method to persuade the jury. ( People v. Berryman, supra, 6 Cal.4th 1048, 1072, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 867, 864 P.2d 40.) In addition, any misconduct by the prosecutor was not prejudicial. To the extent the prosecutor's opening statement ascribed an inaccurate motive to certain of the changes made by defendant in his physical appearance, the inaccuracy was harmless because the jury was instructed that the opening statement was not evidence and defendant had an opportunity to confront all witnesses and to challenge and rebut all evidence offered against him. ( People v. Wrest (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1088, 1109-1110, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 511, 839 P.2d 1020.) Defendant presented evidence of the medical need for his dental work, and in closing argument the defense offered reasons for the other physical changes. Moreover, the prosecutor's challenged argument related to the issue of identity, an issue upon which there was overwhelming independent evidence to support the verdict. (See People v. Sandoval, supra, 4 Cal.4th 155, 185, 14 Cal. Rptr.2d 342, 841 P.2d 862 [any misconduct in the prosecutor's argument that the defendant's changed appearance was a ploy was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt].)