Opinion ID: 844217
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Alleged Prosecutorial Misconduct During Voir Dire

Text: Defendant contends the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct during voir dire by explaining the presumption of innocence to prospective jurors in a manner that undermined that concept, thereby violating his rights to due process of law, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence, a fair jury trial, and a reliable and nonarbitrary penalty determination, as guaranteed by the state and federal Constitutions. The prosecutor described a hypothetical situation in which the prospective juror is in a cashier line in a grocery store and personally observes a person rob and murder the cashier. The prosecutor commented, That person, if that person could be caught, would be prosecuted for murder. But that person would be presumed innocent, even though you saw it happen right before your eyes. The law places this legal presumption that that person is presumed innocent until one of two things happens. One, the person comes into the courtroom and says, `I'm guilty,' or, two, 12 jurors decide that he's guilty. And until and unless that occurs, that person is presumed innocent and it wouldn't matter if just you by yourself witnessed it or if there were 40 people in the line and 40 people observed it. The trial court overruled defendant's objection to these statements, but explained to the prospective jurors that they would not serve as jurors in a case if they had witnessed the crime. (5) In general, a prosecutor commits misconduct by the use of deceptive or reprehensible methods to persuade either the court or the jury. ( People v. Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 447 [3 Cal.Rptr.2d 106, 821 P.2d 610].) When, as here, the point focuses on 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. ( People v. Berryman (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1048, 1072 [25 Cal.Rptr.2d 867, 864 P.2d 40].) We find no misconduct. Defendant argues that the prosecutor's comments diluted the presumption of innocence by suggesting to the jury that it did not need to put aside any bias [the jurors] might have against [defendant] due to the fact that he stood in front of them indicted and accused by the prosecution of a crime because there was a significant possibility that he was actually guilty, just like the murderer of the cashier in the prosecution's example. We disagree. Although one of the conclusions a juror might have drawn from the prosecutor's example was that the presumption of innocence does not mean that the defendant actually is innocent, the main point of his example was that the presumption of innocence applies in court once the person has been charged with a crime, regardless of the circumstances. In other words, jurors must set aside any biases they might have against the defendant, presume him to be innocent, and convict him only if his guilt has been proved in court beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecutor's statements were not legally erroneous, and defendant had ample opportunity to correct, clarify, or amplify the prosecutor's remarks through his own voir dire questions and comments. ( People v. Medina (1995) 11 Cal.4th 694, 741 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 165, 906 P.2d 2].) [7] Moreover, as a general matter, it is unlikely that errors or misconduct occurring during voir dire questioning will unduly influence the jury's verdict in the case. Any such errors or misconduct `prior to the presentation of argument or evidence, obviously reach the jury panel at a much less critical phase of the proceedings ....' ( People v. Medina, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 741.)