Opinion ID: 2636899
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Writings.

Text: Appellant contends that the prosecutor improperly based part of his closing argument on unfounded speculation that other writings of appellant reflected preplanning of the scheme to take the girls and commit the murders. Those writings consisted of various words handwritten on the reverse of baccarat game cards. The words on the first one to which the prosecutor referred were: chop or keep, won't eat through?? Negatio, prints, burns, rot, and shallow. Arrows connected some of the words. The prosecutor argued: When you think about disposing of a body, when you think about some way the police will never be able to identify or find a body, do the words `negative prints,' `chop or keep,' Von't eat through,' `burn,' `rot,' `shallow' or `deep,' when you think about disposing of a body, do those words on this document, [exhibit No.] 154, have a meaning? Do they suggest to you, using those all important ingredients of your common sense, your logic, and your experience, do those words suggest to you that Herbert Coddington gave thought before the crimes and at the same time as he was writing out the scripts of the voices, how do I get rid of the bodies? On another card, appellant had written: PABA, minerals, shoes, PO, bag, case, tarp, win-earn, test  sup, rig, car, 5X, church, wo!!, mail, reg  car. The prosecutor argued: [T]his is the document that has the word `tarp,' and you look at the word `tarp' and you look at the other words that are on that list, and you try to determine what is the meaning, and above the word `tarp' you see the word `bag' and the word `case.' And in the context of putting the bodies into a bag in a case and the word `tarp,' does it have a meaning to you? ... [I]s it meaningful in what was going through that man's mind sometime before the crime was committed. No contemporaneous objection was made, but after this argument, defense counsel complained that nothing in the two exhibits showed when they were prepared and they were not evidence of a plan made before the killings. The court ruled that the prosecutor could argue that it was reasonable to infer that the words were written prior to the killings, and instructed the jury that the prosecutor misspoke when he said the words were written before the killings. The court then stated: That can be argued as a fair inference, but I don't believe the record would indicate as a fact ... one way or the other when it was written. Appellant argues that it was not a fair inference that the words were written prior to the killings and the improper argument and erroneous ruling invited pure speculation, which denied him due process. The court's admonition, he claims, not only failed to cure the misconduct, but made it worse. We disagree. The evidence supported a conclusion that appellant possessed the cards prior to the murders, there being nothing to suggest that he had visited a casino during his brief absence from the mobilehome after the girls had been confined there. It was as or more likely that he made the notations, which included words apparently unrelated to the crimes, before they were committed. The trial court was correct. The inference was reasonable. A reasonable inference ... `may not be based on suspicion alone, or on imagination, speculation, supposition, surmise, conjecture, or guess work. [¶] ... A finding of fact must be an inference drawn from evidence rather than ... a mere speculation as to probabilities without evidence.' ( People v. Morris, supra, 46 Cal.3d 1, 21, 249 Cal.Rptr. 119, 756 P.2d 843.) Defendant's possession of the baccarat cards, the notations on them, and the circumstances in which they were found were all evidence from which it was reasonable to infer that the notations were made prior to the murders.