Opinion ID: 2581010
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Asserted repeated vouching for the credibility of prosecution witnesses

Text: Defendant highlights seven transcript passages in which, he asserts, the prosecutor vouched for the credibility of his witnesses. As we held in People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 25, 959 P.2d 183 ( Frye ), [a] prosecutor is prohibited from vouching for the credibility of witnesses or otherwise bolstering the veracity of their testimony by referring to evidence outside the record. [Citations.] Nor is a prosecutor permitted to place the prestige of [his or] her office behind a witness by offering the impression that [he or] she has taken steps to assure a witness's truthfulness at trial. [Citation.] However, so long as a prosecutors assurances regarding the apparent honesty or reliability of prosecution witnesses are based on the facts of [the] record and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, rather than any purported personal knowledge or belief, [the prosecutors] comments cannot be characterized as improper vouching.  ( Id., at p. 971, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 25, 959 P.2d 183, italics added.) Defendant cites as misconduct (improper vouching) the following italicized passages of the prosecutor's comments to the jury: First, during opening statements, the prosecutor commented: You may hear vernacular, you may hear profanity  we're going to tell you the way it is, we're not going to sugarcoat things  the witnesses from whom you're going to hear do not look like you folks look  you all, every single one of you, are cleanly, nicely dressed, with varying degrees of attire from casual to formal. The witnesses in this case are not going to be like that, but they're going to tell you what happened, and they're going to tell you truthfully. And there may be some `motherfuckers' and `bullshits' mixed in there someplace, but that's what this case  that's part of what this case is. And so, understand that that's part of the truth of this  these lives  and that's what we're going to try to bring to you during the course of this trial. (Italics added.) Second, concerning the testimony of Shane Powell, Mary Perron, and Terry Guillory, the prosecutor commented during closing argument at the guilt phase of the trial: So you can see when you're talking honesty, you have to go deeper than appearance. Because I tell you right now  and I submit to you  true honesty doesn't come from the mind, it comes from the heart. And you heard from some people who may not be the most educated of people, but when it came to the things that they told you about, the things they related to police officers within 12 hours of the time they happened, they were just trying to tell it the way they knew. They had no axe to grind; they had no motive; they had no bias against one person or the other. [¶] They had these perceptions that became relevant when three bodies were found, and they made those perceptions known to the police very soon after these events occurred. And that's the very probity of the reliability of those statements they made. (Italics added.) Third, in discussing Terry Guillory's testimony during closing argument at the guilt phase of the trial, the prosecutor commented: You have to get over Terry Guillory calling defense counsel a `prick' and talking about having to `pee' just before he concluded his testimony, and that's a little uncomfortable to listen to; isn't it? And you may have a few bad things to think about Terry Guillory because he's got a demeanor in the Superior Court that we would think would be unbecoming a witness. I've got some news for you; in point of fact, maybe for one reason  because what he was doing. Terry Guillory was probably the most honest witness you heard. He told it like it was. He hasn't the social mores that most of us would have. He was saying the things that a lot of other witnesses, like Mary Perron and Shane Powell, were saying  thinking  when they went under examination. So you have to go through those hurdles. But remember  consider the content. (Italics added.) Fourth, again discussing the testimony of Shane Powell, Mary Perron, and Terry Guillory, the prosecutor commented: The witnesses from whom you heard  the citizen witnessesmay not have been pretty, but there was a lot of truth there. There was a lot of honesty there. There was a lot of people who were just doing what they had to do because the circumstances demanded it of them. And I would hope  and I would think  that when you analyze and you go through all of this evidence, that truth will become starkly clear in your mind, because that's what this case is all about. It is the clarity of the minds of the people who made the observations when they did, and who related those observations within 12 hours of the time that they made them, when they had absolutely no motive to do anything other than tell the truth, when their observations were as clear in their mind as they possibly could be, and when they related, time and time and time again, under the rigors of a heated cross-examination, as well as direct examination, the same thing  essentially, it was the same thing. Their stories didn't change, because they were remembering something that happened. (Italics added.) Fifth, again discussing the testimony of Terry Guillory, the prosecutor focused the jury's recollection upon the evidence in the case  the demeanor and expressions of Guillory when he testified: [I]t's that demeanor thing that's very difficult to focus in on. But I don't know if you remember the look of Rory Pillow when he was listening to the question he was asked. I submit his thoughts were not dissimilar from the expressions made by Terry Guillory. He just had a little more maturity and was able to reserve himself. Remember that when you think about the testimony of Terry Guillory that the  what he said was not dishonest. It was unpleasant. (Italics added.) Sixth, after explaining the manner in which Shane Powell's testimony  including the circumstance that he heard five gunshots, and heard the scream, No, Richard, no  was consistent with both the physical evidence and with Mary Perron's testimony, and with Powell's earlier statements to the police on the Fourth of July and at the preliminary hearing, the prosecutor commented:  Shane Powell is a credible witness. Shane Powell is credible on the [Fourth] of July, Shane Powell was credible at the time of the preliminary hearing, Shane Powell was credible here.  (Italics added.) Finally, once again discussing the testimony of Shane Powell, the prosecutor commented: And the most compelling statement of all, you heard me say it a couple times, I can't, I'm sure, even come close to approximating the shrill and the voice, the fear and despair. I don't know. I  I think there's no way really to know other than to have experienced that which is, one, another reason by the way you ought to know what Shane Powell tells you is true. I would venture to say [']no Richard no['] is forever engrained in the recesses of Shane Powell's mind and he'll never be able to forget it. He'll be able to testify ten years from now as he did here in this trial in the middle of the [week]. That's how momentous it was. (Italics added.) Defendant failed to object at trial to any of these comments. Because timely admonitions would have cured any harm, the claims of misconduct may not now be asserted on appeal. ( Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d 1, 34, 164 Cal.Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468.) Moreover, we perceive no misconduct. As a general matter, the challenged statements by the prosecutor, when viewed in the context of the prosecutor's preceding and subsequent remarks, constitute permissible comment on the state of the evidence  in other words, conclusions that the prosecutor was drawing from the evidence and from reasonable inferences based on the evidence. Defendant has failed to show a reasonable likelihood the jury understood or applied the complained-of comments in an improper or erroneous manner. ( Frye, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 970, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 25, 959 P.2d 183.) In any event, there was no prejudice. As noted previously, the trial court repeatedly instructed the jury that the arguments of counsel were not evidence and that the jury was required to decide the case based upon the evidence adduced at trial. In light of the evidence and the instructions to the jury, the prosecutor's brief remarks could not have resulted in a miscarriage of justice within the meaning of the Constitution. ( Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d 1, 34, 164 Cal.Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468.)