Opinion ID: 1375029
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Propriety of Questions Put to Defendant

Text: After defendant testified that he desired death, he was cross-examined. He was asked whether he planned to appeal his conviction  he denied that he did  and whether he felt he would get quicker and more direct access to the Supreme Court if you're given the death penalty.... Defendant did not object to these questions. (53) Defendant asserts that the cross-examination improperly focused the jury on the role of the appellate process, thereby relieving the jury of the need to be aware that it was responsible for determining his fate. He contends that this procedure violated the federal Constitution. To be sure, [a]rguably the mere mention of appeal is improper, since it rarely serves any constructive purpose and may lead the jury on its own to infer that [its] responsibility for penalty determination is diluted. But when the context does not suggest appellate correction of an erroneous death verdict, the danger that a jury will feel a lesser sense of responsibility for its verdict is minimal. ( People v. Bittaker (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1046, 1106 [259 Cal. Rptr. 630, 774 P.2d 659].) As was true in Bittaker, there was no suggestion of appellate correction of an erroneous verdict. (Cf. Caldwell v. Mississippi (1985) 472 U.S. 320, 325-326, 328-329 [86 L.Ed.2d 231, 237-238, 238-239, 105 S.Ct. 2633] (plur. opn.); id. at p. 341 [86 L.Ed.2d at p. 247] (opn. of O'Connor, J., conc. in part & in judg.).) Therefore defense counsel's failure to object is fatal to his contention. ( People v. Bittaker, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 1106.)