Opinion ID: 2575997
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Alleged prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument

Text: During his closing argument at the penalty phase, the prosecutor told the jury that it should be insulted by defendant's attitude and demeanor, and by his comment to the jury that it was wrong in convicting him of the murder. The prosecutor told the jury it could consider this conduct by defendant as an aggravating factor. Thereafter, in his closing argument, defense counsel described the prosecutor's argument as a smoke screen and pointed out to the jury that an innocent person must maintain his or her claim of innocence. Defendant contends that the prosecutor committed misconduct by telling the jury that defendant's continued claim of innocence during the penalty phase could be considered as an aggravating factor in determining the penalty. We agree with defendant that it was improper for the prosecutor to state that defendant's testimony at the penalty phase that he was innocent was an aggravating factor. ( People v. Fierro (1991) 1 Cal.4th 173, 244, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 426, 821 P.2d 1302.) Defendant failed to preserve this issue for appeal, however, because he did not object and request an admonition at trial. In addition, the comment was not prejudicial, because it was brief and was directly addressed and countered by defense counsel in his closing argument. We reject defendant's additional claim that the prosecution committed misconduct during its closing argument in telling the jury that defendant deserved no less punishment than what he inflicted on the murder victim and that defendant did not show mercy or sympathy to the victim. The argument is permissible under California law. ( People v. Ochoa, supra, 19 Cal.4th at pp. 464-465, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 408, 966 P.2d 442.)