Opinion ID: 2581358
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Alleged comment on defendant's rights

Text: Defendant complains that in closing argument at the penalty phase the prosecutor urged the jury to impose the death penalty because a verdict of life without possibility of parole would be leniency. The prosecutor continued, [H]e gets rights, including two attorneys to defend him, and four doctors, and a worldwide investigation. The prosecutor concluded, You decide if he is guilty or he is not guilty, adding that's a heck of a lot better system of justice than the justice that he imposes on his victims. Defendant complains that the argument amounts to an impermissible comment upon the exercise of his constitutional rights and in effect urged the jury to impose death in retaliation for defendant's exercise of those rights. Because at trial defendant made no objection to this argument, he has forfeited the claim he now raises. ( People v. Earp, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 858, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 857, 978 P.2d 15.) Moreover, the prosecutor never suggested to the jury that it should penalize defendant for having exercised his rights. Accordingly, we see no reasonable likelihood that the jury misconstrued or misapplied the prosecutor's comments, and we find no error. ( People v. Roybal (1998) 19 Cal.4th 481, 514, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 487, 966 P.2d 521.)