Opinion ID: 1127405
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Discussion of the Meaning of LWOP Sentence

Text: (30) During closing argument, Ryals told the jury that it should think of Mr. Tatman, think of Mr. and Mrs. Bocanegra, Juan and Juanita Bocanegra, not because you feel sorry for them, not because of passion, but in considering the horror those people must have felt on the evening before they died. Then think of the meaning of life without the possibility of parole. It means being alive. It means eating three meals a day. It means watching television. It means having a library, a gymnasium. It means having conjugal visits with your wife. Defense counsel's objection to the argument was sustained, and the jury was admonished to disregard the statement about what life without possibility of parole was like after three meals a day. Defendant contends the above comment improperly swayed the jury to vote in favor of death. We disagree. Nothing in counsel's argument carried the improper suggestion that the jury should not take seriously its sentencing responsibility. Ryals's brief statement would be interpreted by a reasonable jury as an attempt to contrast victim impact evidence against the penalty the prosecution believed defendant deserved. Such evidence is allowed under both federal and state precedent. ( Payne v. Tennessee (1991) 501 U.S. 808 [115 L.Ed.2d 720, 111 S.Ct. 2597]; People v. Edwards (1991) 54 Cal.3d 787, 833-836 [1 Cal. Rptr.2d 696, 819 P.2d 436] [concluding that the immediate injurious impact of a capital murder may be introduced as a circumstance of the crime under section 190.3, factor (a)]). We find no basis for reversal in the prosecutor's argument. [8]