Opinion ID: 1379313
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: alleged misconduct in argument to jury

Text: The prosecutor argued to the jury that defendant had no remorse for his crimes and added: Since you only heard the defendant through the tape recorder and his previous testimony, you were not able to observe his demeanor and sincerity at the time he testified so you, too, could judge if there was any feeling in the man. The prosecutor also said the jury could evaluate defendant not only from his statements but also from his demeanor in the courtroom. (26) Defendant contends that this argument commented on his failure to testify at the penalty phase, in violation of Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609 [14 L.Ed.2d 106, 85 S.Ct. 1229]. But the prosecutor was entitled to comment on the lack of remorse in defendant's prior statements and testimony in whatever form they were brought before the penalty jury ( People v. Williams (1988) 44 Cal.3d 883, 966 [245 Cal. Rptr. 336, 751 P.2d 395]), and to comment on defendant's facial demeanor as he sat in the courtroom ( People v. Heishman (1988) 45 Cal.3d 147, 196-197 [246 Cal. Rptr. 673, 753 P.2d 629]). Defendant further contends that the argument improperly invoked lack of remorse as an aggravating factor. (See People v. Boyd (1985) 38 Cal.3d 762, 773-775 [215 Cal. Rptr. 1, 700 P.2d 782].) This contention is undermined by the fact that three defense witnesses  defendant's brother, former attorney, and psychiatric expert  all testified on the subject of his remorse, if any. Thus, the prosecutor did not introduce the subject and was entitled to comment on the testimony. (See People v. Heishman, supra, 45 Cal.3d 147, 189-190.) (27) Defendant finally contends the prosecutor violated the rule of Booth v. Maryland (1987) 482 U.S. 496 [96 L.Ed.2d 440, 107 S.Ct. 2529] and South Carolina v. Gathers (1989) 490 U.S. 805 [104 L.Ed.2d 876, 109 S.Ct. 2207] by referring to the impact the murders would have on the victims' friends and relatives. But neither case bars brief references to the victims or their families. ( People v. Anderson (1990) 52 Cal.3d 453, 480 [276 Cal. Rptr. 356, 801 P.2d 1107].) The prosecutor referred to the unbearable pain defendant inflicted on the friends and relatives of the victims and their difficult journey when they paid their last respects. As in Anderson, these references to the victims were far more fleeting than those made in either Booth or Gathers, and merely reiterated what the jury already knew  that murder is a crime against the victims, their families and society. ( Ibid. ) In addition, even if there were error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The brief comments could not have diverted the jury from its task of determining the appropriate punishment. ( Ibid. )