Opinion ID: 2630926
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Guilt Phase Closing Argument (Letner, Tobin)

Text: Defendants contend the prosecutor committed several instances of misconduct during her guilt phase argument to the jury. Neither defendant objected to any of the alleged misconduct, nor would such objections have been futile or ineffective. Accordingly, defendants have forfeited their claims of misconduct. In any event, no prejudicial misconduct occurred. We have rejected defendants' claims that the prosecutor's mention of the term instant death was prejudicial misconduct, ante, in part II.B.3.a. Defendants also contend the prosecutor slandered them by arguing, in responding to defense counsel's attacks upon the credibility of Earl Bothwell's testimony, that although Bothwell was an admitted criminal, the jury could not expect that witnesses associated with defendants would be upstanding citizens, because defendants could be expected to be hanging around with other criminals. Defendants contend there was no evidence presented at the guilt phase to establish they were criminals. To the contrary, the evidence demonstrated that Tobin assaulted Jeanette Mayberry, and that Letner possessed stolen property. Moreover, of course, evidence was presented establishing that defendants murdered Pontbriant and stole her car, and then fled to Iowa to escape prosecution. The prosecutor's argument was a permissible comment upon the evidence. (31) Similarly without merit are defendants' contentions that the prosecutor improperly embellished the evidence by arguing that Walter Gilliland's testimony was essentially backed up by other evidence, and that the blood found in the bedroom and on the rag from Pontbriant's car was fresh. These statements, too, were permissible arguments putting forth a reasonable view of the evidence. Prosecutors have wide latitude to discuss and draw inferences from the evidence at trial. [Citation.] Whether the inferences the prosecutor draws are reasonable is for the jury to decide. ( People v. Dennis (1998) 17 Cal.4th 468, 522 [71 Cal.Rptr.2d 680, 950 P.2d 1035].) Tobin also contends the prosecutor improperly dwelled upon the evidence concerning his fight with Mayberry, because that evidence assertedly was irrelevant in the determination whether Tobin was involved in Pontbriant's murder, but instead was designed to portray appellant as a violent man who beats up on women. This contention is without merit. The prosecutor commented upon the fight in the context of attacking the credibility of Tobin's testimony that he and Letner had been planning for several days prior to the murder to move to Iowa but, for largely unexplained reasons, did not decide to leave until the night of the murder. The prosecutor's argument was permissible and in no way asserted that the fight with Mayberry established Tobin's propensity for committing violence against women.