Opinion ID: 2625337
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Lack of remorse and future dangerousness

Text: In his closing argument, the prosecutor said: The callousness and lack of remorse during the commission of this offense that the defendant exhibited is an aggravating factor. It goes beyond just the essential constituents of a first degree murder. The callousness, the cruelty. To illustrate defendant's callousness, the prosecutor mentioned that defendant was present when Nancy said goodbye to her family, knowing he intended to kill Nancy; and that he gave Nancy's personal property to his girlfriend Lisa within hours of Nancy's death. The prosecutor continued: That callousness, the lack of remorse that he exhibited at that time goes beyond the norm. Defendant contends the prosecutor's comments were misconduct because they improperly treated lack of remorse as an aggravating factor. We disagree. The prosecutor's comments focused on the callousness of defendant's acts and lack of remorse near the time of the murder. Such lack of remorse is a circumstance of the murder that may be argued as an aggravating factor. ( People v. Ochoa (2001) 26 Cal.4th 398, 449, 110 Gal.Rptr.2d 324, 28 P.3d 78.) The rule on which defendant relies, that a prosecutor cannot argue remorse as an aggravating factor but as relevant to countering a claim of remorse as a mitigating factor (see People v. Mendoza, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 187, 99 Cal. Rptr.2d 485, 6 P.3d 150), applies when the absence of remorse is argued other than in the context of the murder. Defendant further asserts that in closing argument the prosecutor improperly argued as an aggravating factor that defendant had a propensity for future dangerousness. After saying that defendant used his intelligence and charisma to manipulate others, the prosecutor briefly discussed defendant's manipulation of various people who played a role in this case, including Richard Elander, Bergin Mosteller, and Bruce Gant; the prosecutor also mentioned the testimony of the jailers who described defendant as a good prisoner. The prosecutor then pointed out to the jury: This is not aggravating evidence. It's only evidence in rebuttal of what they presented of his good character. Thus, contrary to defendant's assertion, the prosecutor did not argue future dangerousness as an aggravating factor.