Opinion ID: 2633881
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Argument Assertedly Calling for the Jury to Speculate Regarding the Circumstances of the Murders

Text: Echoing another guilt phase misconduct claim, defendant contends the prosecutor engaged in misconduct at the penalty phase by suggesting to the jury it should consider evidence of the physical trauma to Lactawen in filling in the gaps in the evidence regarding the Garcia and Sorensen murders and the condition of their bodies immediately after defendant murdered them. [57] Defendant claims this argument improperly invited the jury to speculate, misstated the evidence, violated the propensity rule by arguing that all three murders were committed in the same manner, and improperly sought to inflame the passions of the jury. Defendant did not object or request an admonition, and therefore has forfeited this claim. In any event, no misconduct occurred. For the same reasons we stated ante, in part II.C.6.d, the argument challenged here fairly suggested inferences the jury properly could draw from the evidence presented at trial, especially in light of the striking similarities among the murders, and left for the jury the decision whether to accept or reject those suggestions. (See also People v. Slaughter (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1187, 1212, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 477, 47 P.3d 262 [at the penalty phase, the prosecutor is permitted to invite the jurors to put themselves in the place of the victims and imagine their suffering]; People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 672, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 629, 22 P.3d 392 [At the penalty phase of a capital trial, a prosecutor is permitted to argue any reasonable inferences from properly admitted evidence of a defendant's prior violent crime, even if such inferences relate to the defendant's character as revealed in the prior violent crime itself or in its surrounding circumstances]; Ray, supra, 13 Cal.4th at pp. 349-350, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 296, 914 P.2d 846 [§ 190.3, factor (b) permits the jury's consideration of evidence of violent criminality committed at any time in the defendant's life, and whether or not adjudicated, to show his propensity for violence]; People v. Kelly (1990) 51 Cal.3d 931, 964, 275 Cal.Rptr. 160, 800 P.2d 516 [photographs of victims properly were admitted at penalty phase when they supported the prosecution's theory of the crimes and were not unduly gruesome].)