Opinion ID: 1351466
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: References to the Tapes in Closing Argument

Text: (13) Defendant complains of two types of misconduct arising from the prosecutor's references to the taped statements. The first is the prosecutor's use of improperly admitted evidence in closing argument. As we have discussed above, the taped excerpts played to the jury were correctly admitted. The prosecutor was therefore permitted to draw all reasonable inferences from that evidence in his argument. ( People v. Beivelman, supra, 70 Cal.2d 60, 76-77.) (14) The second class of claimed misconduct is more serious. During closing argument the prosecutor told the jury, without foundation, that the defense had attempted to prevent the prosecution from playing the tape in its entirety. Later the prosecutor told the jury he was certain they were anxious to hear the rest of the tape, because it is inconsistent with defendant's own defense. Defendant argues that these two statements, based on facts not in evidence, might have caused jurors to believe that the tapes harbored damaging evidence, and that, indeed, the tapes recorded defendant's confession to the crime. The prosecutor's remarks were clear misconduct. They contained innuendo, based on facts not in evidence, that may have given rise to jury speculation regarding the unheard portions of the tapes. We do not agree, however, that these remarks, vague as they were, could have led a reasonable juror to conclude that defendant had actually confessed to the crime. In any event, defense counsel did not object to these remarks. Had he done so, the court might have cured their potential prejudice by, among other things, informing the jury that the prosecutor's assertions were untrue. Having failed to object to the remarks, defendant has waived the point on appeal. ( People v. Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 34.)