Opinion ID: 2637824
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appeals to Sympathy, Passion, and Prejudice

Text: Defendant argues that the prosecutor appealed to the jury's passion, prejudice, and sympathy by referring to Sophia as that poor lady, that poor woman, or as a very nice woman; describing her assault as a savage beating and expressing incredulity that one human being could do that to another being; remarking that any uneasiness the jury might experience in viewing the photographs of her injuries would reflect a measure of the true violent capabilities of the defendant in this case and the true measure of the suffering of the victim; and ending his argument by telling the jury that it had the ability through its verdict to tell everybody in this community and everyone that Sophia was a nice person, a gentle person, a loner who was depressed and contemplative because she was mourning the loss of the person that she loved more than anybody else in life, and that she was not a promiscuous woman who would engage in a one-night stand with the defendant. Defendant also argues that the prosecutor made similar impassioned statements relating to Maria M. and the other victims in this case by stating that the memory of each of the victims will always be scarred from their individual suffering and the terror created by defendant's assaults; remarking on their looks of discomfort while having to face the defendant again in court; describing the tears evoked when Maria testified as to defendant's assault; and by claiming that it was insulting your intelligence for defendant to claim that he did not intend to rape Maria. As defendant acknowledges, defense counsel lodged no objection to these statements. He claims, however, that he was not required to object because of the number and variety of the comments and because they increased in both frequency and severity until the end of the prosecutor's argument, by which time it was it was too late for an objection and admonition to cure the harm. In addition, he notes that defense counsel, in his closing argument, sought to defuse the prosecutor's remarks by characterizing the comments as hot words, emotional words and an appeal to the emotional issues, and by encouraging the jury to set aside those emotions because that isn't how the law expects you to make your decision. (11) Assuming, without deciding, that objections were not required under these circumstances, we conclude defendant has not shown that he is entitled to relief. The prosecutor's description of the victim's injuries was not an improper appeal to the jury's passion and prejudice. Prosecuting attorneys are allowed a wide range of descriptive comment and their' argument may be vigorous as long as it amounts to fair comment on the evidence, which can include reasonable inferences, or deductions to be drawn therefrom.' ( People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 221 [66 Cal.Rptr.2d 123, 940 P.2d 710], quoting People v. Wharton (1991) 53 Cal.3d 522, 567 [280 Cal.Rptr. 631, 809 P.2d 290].) The prosecution's description of Sophia suffering a savage beating and the comment about how it reflected defendant's violent capabilities were fair comments on the evidence. In People v. Harrison (2005) 35 Cal.4th 208 [25 Cal.Rptr.3d 224, 106 P.3d 895], in which the defendant killed two people over a sale of fake cocaine by shooting them pointblank in the head, we concluded that the prosecutor at the guilt phase did not exceed the bounds of permissible closing argument by describing the defendant as someone who enjoyed killing like `a little kid opening his toys at Christmas' ( id. at p. 244) as a `denizen of the night,' as `the executioner,' as `the terminator of precious life,' as `a head hunter' ( id. at p. 245) and as `the complete and total essence of evil' with `a cold unyielding heart' ( id. at p. 246). The comments at issue here are far less descriptive given the circumstances of the case. (12) Even if the prosecutor's argument could be interpreted as an improper appeal for sympathy for Sophia and the other victims, however, it is not reasonably probable that the verdict would have been more favorable to defendant without the misconduct. We have settled that an appeal to the jury to view the crime through the eyes of the victim is misconduct at the guilt phase of trial; an appeal for sympathy for the victim is out of place during an objective determination of guilt. [Citations.] ( People v. Stansbury (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1017, 1057 [17 Cal.Rptr.2d 174, 846 P.2d 756].) The prosecutor's comments about Sophia's character and the impact of defendant's crimes on the other victims were not egregious and were relatively brief compared to the rest of his arguments. They could not, by themselves, have swayed the jury. The evidence that defendant killed Sophia was very strong and generally uncontradicted. Moreover, defense counsel responded effectively to the prosecutor's comments in his closing argument, and the trial court instructed the jury not to be influenced by pity for or prejudice against defendant, and not be influenced by mere sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, public opinion or public feeling. We presume the jury followed the court's instruction. (See People v. Kipp (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1100, 1130 [113 Cal.Rptr.2d 27, 33 P.3d 450].)