Opinion ID: 2610902
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evidence of Defendant's Prior Crimes and Convictions

Text: (4) Next, defendant asserts the prosecutor, during the competency hearing, committed misconduct in presenting evidence and argument regarding defendant's prior criminal acts and convictions. Defendant observes that evidence was admitted regarding (1) his 1968 conviction for firing a shotgun in a bar, (2) his 1977 rape, kidnapping and lewd conduct convictions, (3) his status as a registered sex offender and parolee, and (4) his various violent acts committed while in custody. Most of these matters were first elicited without objection, on cross-examination of defense experts, for the proper purpose of determining the facts on which they based their opinions regarding defendant's incompetence. (See People v. Malone (1988) 47 Cal.3d 1, 31-32 [252 Cal. Rptr. 525, 762 P.2d 1249]; People v. Hendricks (1988) 44 Cal.3d 635, 642 [244 Cal. Rptr. 181, 749 P.2d 836].) Defendant maintains, however, that the prosecutor should not have made further reference to these matters (which remained largely unproved or without proper foundation) in his closing arguments. Defendant observes he made proper objection to these arguments. (See People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 27 [164 Cal. Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468].) He contends the prosecutor's remarks placed undue emphasis on [his] violent background, thereby shifting the focus of the hearing from competency to propensity to commit `bad' acts.... We have reviewed the record and find no misconduct. The prosecutor simply outlined the competency hearing testimony and the facts on which that testimony was based, including occasional references to defendant's prior acts and convictions. Throughout his argument, the prosecutor explained to the jurors that his comments were not evidence, that the sole issue then before them was defendant's competence and not his guilt of any crimes, and that any evidence of such crimes was introduced for the sole purpose of determining the competency issue and not to show that defendant was a bad guy. The trial court similarly instructed the jury that the prosecutor's comments were not evidence, and that any evidence introduced for a limited purpose, including the exhibits containing references to defendant's prior criminal record, should be considered only for that purpose. We conclude the jury's competency finding should be upheld.