Opinion ID: 844263
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defense Counsel's Concession on the Lester Eaton Murder

Text: The prosecutor began his rebuttal argument by stating he was going to focus primarily on the Skyles and Price murders because both counsel essentially conceded their clients' guilt in the Hillgrove Market robbery murder in their closing arguments. After the prosecutor concluded his remarks and outside the presence of the jury, Gonzales's counsel objected that he had not in fact conceded Gonzales's guilt in the Hillgrove Market robbery murder. The prosecutor explained he had meant that Gonzales's counsel, because of his brief discussion of the Hillgrove Market robbery murder during closing argument, had implicitly conceded the issue, not that Gonzales's counsel had expressly conceded it. The trial court overruled the objection, concluding that the prosecutor's comments did not amount to misconduct. The court agreed that Gonzales's counsel had not made an express concession, but reasoned that because Gonzales's counsel had devoted such a relatively brief portion of his closing argument to the Hillgrove Market robbery murder, the prosecutor and the jury could reasonably interpret this as tantamount to a concession. The trial court also noted the jury had been instructed that the statements of counsel were not evidence and were not to be regarded as such. Gonzales contends the prosecutor's remarks were misconduct because they implied to the jury that defense counsel had stipulated to Gonzales's guilt for Eaton's murder. We disagree. We perceive no reasonable likelihood that the jury `construed or applied any of the complained-of remarks in an objectionable fashion.' ( People v. Smithey, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 960.)