Opinion ID: 1359265
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Commenting on Tape-recorded Statements

Text: In his penalty phase argument, the prosecutor made reference to defendants' tape-recorded conversations, introduced by the prosecution at the guilt phase of trial. (See pt. II.A, ante. ) He suggested that portions of the conversations showed that defendant Ross was the leader in committing the murders in this case, that Ross showed no remorse for his crimes, and that defendants would remain a threat to society if they were sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole, because they might try to escape from prison or attack a prison guard. (As previously explained, in the conversations defendants fantasized about wanting to escape and to blow up the driver of the van transporting them to court.) (29) Defendant Ross argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct by referring to the tape-recorded conversations in this fashion, because the prosecutor gave no notice that he intended to use the conversations at the penalty phase. He asserts that the prosecutor was obligated to give such notice under section 190.3. Because defendant Ross did not object to the prosecutor's comments regarding the tape-recorded conversations, he has not preserved the right to challenge them on appeal. In any event, section 190.3 provides that the prosecutor need not give notice of evidence in proof of the offense ... which subject[s] a defendant to the death penalty. [31] As the tape-recorded conversations were evidence used at the guilt phase of trial to establish defendant Ross's guilt of the murders for which he is subject to the death penalty, the prosecutor did not have to give notice that he intended to rely on them at the penalty phase.