Opinion ID: 1179776
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Responsibility for Sentencing Decision.

Text: (38) Defendant asserts the prosecutor improperly diminished the jurors' sense of sentencing responsibility when he completed his rebuttal argument with the following comment: You did not start this process. Remember, it is the defendant that is responsible for a decision of death by his killing of Mr. Waltrip on May 23, 1987, not you. He, alone, is responsible for your confrontation with death that you must make. He, alone, is responsible, because he, alone, suddenly, violently, callously, and undeservedly murdered John Waltrip. [ถ] And, now, is the time to determine the consequences of that act. [ถ] Thank you. Defendant's failure to object waives the issue, but it lacks merit in any event. The prosecutor sought only to emphasize that the moral blame for the crimes and their consequences rests with defendant, not with the jurors, and this is not improper. ( People v. Fierro (1991) 1 Cal.4th 173, 247 [3 Cal. Rptr.2d 426, 821 P.2d 1302].) [37] Indeed, the prosecutor made clear that because of the defendant's conduct, the jury must indeed now confront and make a penalty decision. The prosecutor never intimated that the jurors had only a minimal role in the sentencing process or could shift their sentencing responsibility elsewhere. (See Romano v. Oklahoma (1994) 512 U.S. 1, ___ [129 L.Ed.2d 1, 9-10, 114 S.Ct. 2004, 2010].) No misconduct occurred.