Opinion ID: 1129438
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prosecutor's Demonstrative Use of a Hammer

Text: (39a) At the conclusion of his closing penalty argument, the prosecutor vividly demonstrated the number of hammer blows received by victim Winchell, stating: This is my last opportunity to say anything to you about this case, but there is one thing I want you to think about in the jury room and it's the essence of this case. Just think about this because this is what happened. Twenty-three times. It was just like this. The prosecutor thereupon counted from 1 to 23 as he swung the hammer in the air, acting out the 23 hammer blows suffered by Winchell. A defense objection following the count of 12 was overruled. (40) We have stated that [a]lthough appeals to the sympathy or passions of the jury are inappropriate at the guilt phase [citation], at the penalty phase the jury decides a question the resolution of which turns not only on the facts, but on the jury's moral assessment of those facts as they reflect on whether defendant should be put to death. It is not only appropriate, but necessary, that the jury weigh the sympathetic elements of defendant's background against those that may offend the conscience. [Citations]. In this process, one of the most significant considerations is the nature of the underlying crime. (See Pen. Code, § 190.3, [factor] (a).) Hence assessment of the offense from the victim's viewpoint would appear germane to the task of sentencing. ( People v. Haskett (1982) 30 Cal.3d 841, 863-864 [180 Cal. Rptr. 640, 640 P.2d 776].) Haskett also pointed out, however, that the court should maintain a careful balance between probative and prejudicial evidence or argument, and should curtail inflammatory rhetoric that diverts the jury's attention from its proper role or invites an irrational, purely subjective response.... (30 Cal.3d at p. 864.) Haskett approved prosecutorial argument at the penalty phase inviting the jurors to put themselves in the victim's shoes and to imagine suffering the acts inflicted on her. (30 Cal.3d at p. 863; see also People v. Hovey, supra, 44 Cal.3d 543, 576 [prosecutor's use of large portrait of child victim during penalty phase arguments]; People v. Fields (1983) 35 Cal.3d 329, 362, and fn. 14 [197 Cal. Rptr. 803, 673 P.2d 680].) (39b) Here, the prosecutor's hammer blows were intended to accomplish the same end as in Haskett, namely, to emphasize the heinous nature of the murder and the extent of the victim's suffering. Although counting out 23 hammer blows was probably unnecessary to accomplish this purpose, nonetheless, any misconduct could not have been prejudicial. The jury was presented with medical and other testimony outlining the cause and extent of Winchell's wounds. No reasonable juror aware of such evidence would have been swayed to vote for death by the prosecutor's demonstrative methods.