Opinion ID: 2612406
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Argument regarding failure to call witness.

Text: (13) Defendant claims it was misconduct for the prosecutor to argue that, We didn't hear from Steve Martinez. We didn't hear from the six-year-old girl. We didn't hear from the neighbors. We only heard  the only witness present was [defendant] that you heard from. Defendant concedes that the prosecutor may comment upon the defendant's failure to introduce logical evidence or call logical witnesses. ( People v. Ford (1988) 45 Cal.3d 431, 442-449 [247 Cal. Rptr. 121, 754 P.2d 168, 76 A.L.R.4th 785]; People v. Szeto (1981) 29 Cal.3d 20, 34 [171 Cal. Rptr. 652, 623 P.2d 213].) However, defendant deems it ludicrous to suggest that a six-year-old child, even if present at the time of the shooting, was a logical percipient witness. Absent an objection below, the assertion of misconduct is waived. ( Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 27.) Nor does counsel's failure to object warrant reversal on a theory of ineffective assistance. Despite the prosecutor's brief remark, the jury was capable of deciding, as a matter of common sense, whether such a young child was a logical or reliable witness. The issue was tangential in any event. (14) (See fn. 9.) Far more damaging was defendant's conceded failure to call Martinez, whom defendant said he warned of a Bassett attack. [9] Hence, the prosecutor's unchallenged reference to the absence of a child witness does not undermine confidence in the outcome.