Opinion ID: 2520047
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Testifying While Questioning Witness

Text: In response to the prosecutor's question whether the prints found on the gun retrieved from the Monte Carlo could have been made in wet blood, Serologist Catalani responded: Yes, it could be made while the blood was wet. In response, the prosecutor uttered: Not under the blood or  You can't make it under the blood  Okay. Thank you, no further questions. Defendant claims this statement by the prosecutor constituted improper testimony based on the prosecutor's incorrect interpretation of the witness's statement. Defendant did not object. Because an admonition could have cured any harm, this claim is forfeited. ( Dennis, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 521, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 680, 950 P.2d 1035; People v. Earp, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 858, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 857, 978 P.2d 15.) Moreover, there was no misconduct because, while the prosecutor may have been confused, she did not use any deceptive or reprehensible methods to attempt to persuade either the court or the jury. ( Earp, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 858, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 857, 978 P.2d 15.) Nor did the comment so infect[ ] the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process under the federal Constitution. ( Darden v. Wainwright, supra, 477 U.S. at p. 181, 106 S.Ct. 2464.) The prosecutor's isolated comment was not relied upon, or even mentioned, at any other part of the trial. Therefore, defendant's claim fails on the merits as well.