Opinion ID: 2632308
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Prosecutorial Misconduct at the Guilt Phase

Text: Defendant accuses the prosecutor of misconduct when he asked criminologist William Chisum: And you haven't had a chance to talk to Mr. Michaels about where any of those knives [the knives used in the murder] might be, have you? Chisum answered: No, sir, I have not talked to Mr. Michaels. The trial court sustained defendant's objection and admonished the jury not to consider the question and answer. It is doubtful whether the prosecutor's question could be construed as a comment on defendant's failure to testify; it appears to be a comment only on the scope of Chisum's investigation. It was, however, argumentative and defendant successfully objected on that ground. We perceive no reason why the trial court's action in sustaining the objection and admonishing the jury would be insufficient to cure any harm. Defendant also complains of the prosecutor's questions to prosecution witnesses Rodney Hatch and Leon Madrid that elicited replies that defendant showed no remorse after the murder. Defendant's contention that remorse or the absence of remorse is inadmissible at the guilt phase overstates the law. Absence of remorse is irrelevant to prove that a defendant committed a homicide, but it may be relevant, because it sheds light on the defendant's mental state, in determining the degree of the homicide or the existence of special circumstances. (See People v. Mayfield (1993) 5 Cal.4th 142, 178-179, 19 Cal. Rptr.2d 836, 852 P.2d 331.) Defendant made damaging admissions to both Hatch and Madrid. He claimed those statements were not true, but constituted boasting designed to enhance defendant's image as a powerful and dangerous person. Defendant's demeanor when he made those statements would help the jury determine whether they constituted truthful admissions or mere braggadocio. That the questions elicited replies that defendant did not appear remorseful does not make them improper. Defendant complains that the prosecutor asked four witnessesMark Hebert, Velinda Davis, Kimberly Buckhalter, and Dennis Lucasif they had ever previously seen defendant wearing a suit. Defendant only objected once, on the third such occasion, and that objection was sustained. His failure to object bars him from claiming prosecutorial misconduct on the other three occasions. ( People v. Lewis, supra, 25 Cal.4th 610, 670-671, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 629, 22 P.3d 392.) Defendant also complains of the prosecutor's questions about defendant's violence toward Christina, but he failed to object at trial. The trial court, however, excluded the evidence on its own motion and admonished the jury to disregard it. We conclude both that the defendant did not preserve the issue for appeal, and that defendant has shown no prejudice.