Opinion ID: 2582262
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Comments About Defendant

Text: The prosecutor said, at various times, that defendant lied at trial; that he was unwilling to accept or admit responsibility for what he had done; that he lacked remorse or emotion; that he was dangerous; that he bragged about the murder; that defendant lacked humanity; that defendant was frightening; and that the jury had before you a man, and I use that term `man' in this context very broadly. We have a man who's going down for the third time. Defendant now claims these comments improperly denigrated him. The unobjected-to comments were all based on the evidence and came within the broad scope of permissible argument. ( People v. Wharton (1991) 53 Cal.3d 522, 567, 280 Cal.Rptr. 631, 809 P.2d 290.) Defendant relies on two cases, neither of which cause us to find misconduct here. In Darden v. Wainwright (1986) 477 U.S. 168, 180, 106 S.Ct. 2464, 91 L.Ed.2d 144, the United States Supreme Court stated in general that various prosecutorial jury arguments undoubtedly were improper, although it found no prejudice. Among the many comments the high court cited was the prosecutor's referring to the defendant as an animal. ( Id. at p. 179, 106 S.Ct. 2464.) The court did not specifically single out use of the word animal as improper. ( Id. at p. 180, 106 S.Ct. 2464.) The prosecutor here commented on evidence that defendant tortured a woman to death in the presence of his two-year-old son. The argument was forceful but supported by the evidence. We see no similarity between the remarks here and the overall argument condemned in Darden. In Dubria v. Smith (9th Cir.1999) 197 F.3d 390, the court condemned the prosecutor's argument that the defendant, who he described as a (piece of garbage,) was fabricating his defense. ( Id. at p. 402.) The argument implied that the prosecutor had personal knowledge that the jury did not. The court concluded that the prosecutor both expressed an improper personal opinion in the defendant's guilt and improperly denigrat[ed] the defense as a sham. ( Ibid. ) It did not state that referring to the defendant as a (piece of garbage,) ( ibid. ) by itself, would have been improper if the reference had been based solely on the evidence. The argument made here was qualitatively different and permissible.