Opinion ID: 1359265
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inflammatory Argument

Text: Defendants accuse the prosecutor of misconduct in his closing argument, by appealing to the jury's passion and prejudice and by engaging in inflammatory argument. In his closing argument, the prosecutor noted that some members of the jury might feel anger and outrage at the crimes both defendants had committed. Anticipating that the defense might argue that it is wrong to make your decision in anger, the prosecutor stated: It is wrong only to make your decision solely because of anger. He also argued that by committing the murders, defendants showed that they believed in the death penalty, and he commended the jury in advance for its courage in sentencing defendants to death. Defendants argue that these remarks were improper, but neither defendant objected to them. Even if one assumes that the prosecutor's comments were improper, any conceivable prejudice arising from them could have been cured by a timely objection and admonition. Thus, defendants have not preserved the right to complain about them on appeal. ( People v. Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 440 [3 Cal. Rptr.2d 106, 821 P.2d 610].) Defendants also assert that other comments by the prosecutor in closing argument implied that they should be sentenced to death because they would be a danger to other prisoners and to prison guards if they were sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole. (28) Although we have held that at the penalty phase of a capital case the prosecutor may not introduce expert testimony forecasting that, if sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, a defendant will commit violent acts in prison ( People v. Murtishaw (1981) 29 Cal.3d 733, 779 [175 Cal. Rptr. 738, 631 P.2d 446]), we have never held that in closing argument a prosecutor may not comment on the possibility that if the defendant is not executed he or she will remain a danger to others. Rather, we have concluded that the prosecutor may make such comments when they are supported by the evidence. ( People v. Pinholster, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 963; People v. Bell (1989) 49 Cal.3d 502, 549 [262 Cal. Rptr. 1, 778 P.2d 129].) In any event, defendants' failure to object to the prosecutor's comments bars them from complaining about the comments on appeal. ( People v. Price, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 440.)