Opinion ID: 2508322
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reference to inapplicable law

Text: During closing argument, the prosecutor discussed the events leading to defendant's attempted murder of Davis and argued that defendant intended to kill Davis to eliminate him as a witness. The prosecutor continued: Ladies and gentlemen, the murder of a witness in the State of California is a special circumstance, itself, in and of itself makes someone eligible for the death penalty, in addition to the multiple murder special circumstance. He was going to kill a witness to a crime within a week of executing two people. (Italics added.) Defendant objected to the italicized portion of the argument, and the trial court sustained the objection. The court told the jury that the special circumstance the prosecutor referred to was not and is not alleged in this case and that the jury should disregard it. Defendant contends the italicized statement provided the jury with a perfect independent rationale for a verdict of death. We disagree. In the context of the prosecutor's discussion of defendant's attempted murder of Davis, the statement was merely an attempt to convey to the jury the seriousness of the crime against Davis. In any event, there is no reasonable likelihood the jury construed or applied the challenged remark in an objectionable fashion, given that defendant did not kill Davis, the prosecutor did not argue defendant killed Davis, and the jury was told that the special circumstance of murdering a witness was not alleged in this case and that it should disregard the remark.