Opinion ID: 1158185
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Derogatory Comments

Text: (30) Defendant's final assignment of prosecutorial misconduct concerns certain remarks which allegedly cast aspersions on defense counsel and defense witnesses. (See People v. Thompson (1988) 45 Cal.3d 86, 112 [246 Cal. Rptr. 245, 753 P.2d 37].) As defendant failed to object to the remarks and request a curative admonition, the claim is waived on appeal. ( People v. Bell, supra, 49 Cal.3d at pp. 537-538.) We find no prejudicial error in any event. Defendant cites two statements which allegedly implied that defense counsel had fabricated evidence. Recalling defendant's responses on cross-examination, the prosecutor observed, Somebody must have told him, say `I don't know' when you can't think of why [defendant committed the offenses]  don't say, `Because I wanted to.' We agree that the statement was arguably improper as suggesting that someone  presumably trial counsel  counseled defendant to feign a loss of memory. However, we discern no possibility that this passing remark in the prosecutor's lengthy and detailed argument had any affect on the verdict. Defendant also complains of the prosecutor's statement, referred to earlier, ridiculing defendant's explanation that he confessed because he wanted to die: Doesn't that sound like a psychiatrist or a psychologist could kind of say: Now, Jeff, isn't there some reason that you told them that? Apart from defendant's failure to object, we perceive no impropriety in the remark, which was well within the bounds of the kind of vigorous argument a prosecutor is entitled to make. ( People v. Thompson, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 125.) We have reviewed the remaining statements which defendant contends denigrated counsel and find that none had the potential to deny defendant a fair trial, divert the jury from its proper role, or invite an irrational, purely emotional response. ( People v. Visciotti, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 83.) [21]