Opinion ID: 1281413
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Misstatement Regarding Facts of Prior Felony Conviction

Text: By stipulation, as already noted ( ante, p. 248), documentary evidence that defendant had been convicted of shooting at an inhabited dwelling, a felony (§ 246), was introduced as an aggravating circumstance (§ 190.3, factor (c).) Moreover, the jury was instructed in the language of CALJIC No. 9.03.1 that: Any person who shall maliciously and willfully discharge a firearm at an inhabited dwelling house is guilty of a crime.... [¶] In order to prove the commission of this crime, each of the following elements must be proved: ... [t]hat a firearm was discharged by the person at an inhabited dwelling house and ... [t]hat such act was done maliciously and willfully. (Italics added.) The record clearly reflects that the prosecutor was aware defendant was not the actual shooter in the incident underlying the prior conviction, and that defendant was on that occasion driving the vehicle from which an accomplice had fired the shots. Nevertheless, in his argument to the jury, the prosecutor described the prior conviction thusly: violation of 246 of the Penal Code, in that the defendant used a gun, that he fired it at an inhabited dwelling house, and he did it willfully, and he did it maliciously. We have already determined that on these facts, the standard instruction given the jury respecting the elements of a violation of section 246 was inadequate and misleading. ( Ante, p. 256.) (48) It is true that the prosecutor's comments accurately paraphrased the language of the instruction, but, given that he knew defendant had not been the actual shooter, his statement to the jury that the defendant used a gun ... he fired it ... was misleading, and hence misconduct. [10] Once again, however, defense counsel having failed to object to the prosecutor's remarks or seek an appropriate admonition which could have readily cured the error, this claim of prosecutorial misconduct too is waived on appeal. ( People v. Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 34.)