Opinion ID: 1171490
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Effect of guilt phase argument on penalty phase determination.

Text: During his guilt phase argument, the prosecutor suggested, based on the condition of Mary's clothing, that she might have been killed in the course of trying to resist defendant's sexual advances. Before the penalty phase began, defense counsel moved in limine to bar the prosecutor from arguing this sexual motive theory to show attempted rape under the rubric of aggravating factor (b), other criminal activity by defendant. (§ 190.3, factor (b).) [17] The trial court agreed that insufficient evidence of attempted rape had been presented to warrant a factor (b) argument and further ruled that the prosecutor could not associate the possible sexual motive for Mary's murder with defendant's prior rape convictions. (30) Defendant argues that this ruling came too late to avoid prejudice. He contends the jury was likely, on hearing of defendant's prior rape convictions, to recall the sexual motive argument and improperly consider defendant's alleged sexual attack on Mary as an aggravating factor. We disagree. The trial court instructed the jury that [e]vidence has been introduced for the purpose of showing the defendant has committed other criminal acts including battery, and including threatening a police officer  a peace officer which involved the express or implied use of force or violence or the threat of force or violence. Before you may consider any criminal acts, any of the criminal acts as aggravating circumstance in this case, you must first be satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did, in fact, commit those acts. You may not consider any evidence of any other criminal acts as an aggravating circumstance. This instruction clearly and correctly conveyed to the jury the scope of their determination under factor (b), and defendant points to nothing in the record suggesting that the jury misunderstood its duty. We are unpersuaded by defendant's speculation that the jury rendered an unreliable penalty determination due to the prosecutor's sexual motive argument during the guilt phase. Even more speculative and unpersuasive is his assertion that the jury used the sexual motive argument to corroborate the penalty phase argument that defendant would pose a danger to female prison guards if he were sentenced to life without possibility of parole.