Opinion ID: 2509294
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Misconduct During Closing Argument

Text: Defendant contends the prosecutor committed misconduct during his closing and rebuttal arguments. Defendant objected to only one of the statements he argues was misconduct, thus forfeiting his claims as to the rest. ( People v. Brown (2003) 31 Cal.4th 518, 533, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 145, 73 P.3d 1137.) In any event, we find there was no misconduct but, even if there was, no prejudice. When a prosecutor's intemperate behavior is sufficiently egregious that it infects the trial with such a degree of unfairness as to render the subsequent conviction a denial of due process, the federal Constitution is violated. Prosecutorial misconduct that falls short of rendering the trial fundamentally unfair may still constitute misconduct under state law if it involves the use of deceptive or reprehensible methods to persuade the trial court or the jury. ( People v. Ayala, supra, 23 Cal.4th at pp. 283-284, 96 Cal. Rptr.2d 682, 1 P.3d 3.) To preserve a claim of prosecutorial misconduct for appeal, a criminal defendant must make a timely objection, make known the basis of his objection, and ask the trial court to admonish the jury. ( People v. Brown, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 553, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 145, 73 P.3d 1137.) There are two exceptions to this forfeiture: (1) the objection and/or the request for an admonition would have been futile, or (2) the admonition would have been insufficient to cure the harm occasioned by the misconduct. Forfeiture for failure to request an admonition will also not apply where the trial court immediately overruled the objection to the alleged misconduct, leaving defendant without an opportunity to request an admonition. A defendant claiming that one of these exceptions applies must find support for his or her claim in the record. ( People v. Boyette, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 432, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 544, 58 P.3d 391.) The ritual incantation that an exception applies is not enough. Defendant contends that the prosecutor improperly appealed to the prejudices and passions of the jury, and denigrated the presumption of innocence, when he argued that the prosecution's evidence had stripped away defendant's presumption of innocence. Additionally, he claims that the prosecutor's reference to the victim's age, height, and weight also constituted an appeal to the jury's prejudices and passions because it drew an implied contrast between her stature and defendant's. We disagree. [T]he prosecutor has a wide-ranging right to discuss the case in closing argument. He has the right to fully state his views as to what the evidence shows and to urge whatever conclusions he deems proper. ( People v. Lewis (1990) 50 Cal.3d 262, 283, 266 Cal. Rptr. 834, 786 P.2d 892.) Here, the prosecutor's references to the presumption of innocence were made in connection with his general point that, in his view, the evidence, to which he had just referred at length, proved defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, i.e., the evidence overcame the presumption. Defendant's further claim that the prosecutor's reference to the victim's age, weight, and height was intended to appeal to the jury's sympathies is also without merit. These were facts in evidence. The prosecutor cannot be faulted for misconduct because he referred to them, nor was he required to discuss his view of the case in clinical or detached detail. ( People v. Hill, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 819, 72 Cal. Rptr.2d 656, 952 P.2d 673 [`A prosecutor may vigorously argue his case and is not limited to `Chesterfieldian politeness''], quoting People v. Williams, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 221, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 123, 940 P.2d 710.) Next, defendant cites three comments by the prosecution he claims improperly lowered the burden of proof: (1) that it was a reasonable interpretation from certain body fluid evidence that defendant and the victim were on the bed in defendant's bedroom; (2) that it was a reasonable inference from other evidence regarding defendant's habits, customs and statements to Rauni Campbell that he videotaped the crime; and, (3) the analysis of tissue paper found in the wastebasket in defendant's bathroom indicate[d] that the victim had orally copulated defendant. Defendant failed to object to any of these comments, or to seek a curative admonition, thus the claim is forfeited. ( People v. Brown, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 553, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 145, 73 P.3d 1137.) He argues that his failure to object or seek an admonition should be excused under the futility exception, but cites nothing in the record to support its application. In any event, these isolated references did not constitute an argument that defendant could be convicted on a showing of less than guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but were reasonable inferences or deductions that the prosecutor could permissibly urge the jury to draw from the evidence. ( People v. Hill, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 819, 72 Cal. Rptr.2d 656, 952 P.2d 673.) Finally, defendant argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct when, in response to defense counsel's claim that the prosecutor had failed to produce either fingerprint or DNA evidence, he pointed out that the defense could also have conducted these experiments. Defendant contends that the prosecutor's argument shifted the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense. Again, defendant's failure to object to this argument or seek a curative admonition forfeits the claim, and he points to nothing on the record that would excuse forfeiture. In any event, the claim is without merit. Defense counsel argued that the prosecution had neglected to collect vital evidence, such as any fingerprints on the suitcase in which the victim's body was found or DNA evidence, and suggested the reason was because it did not want to risk linking someone else to the crime. The prosecutor's argument was a proper rebuttal to these claims. ( People v. McDaniel (1976) 16 Cal.3d 156, 177, 127 Cal.Rptr. 467, 545 P.2d 843; see also People v. Wash (1993) 6 Cal.4th 215, 263, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 421, 861 P.2d 1107, quoting People v. Szeto (1981) 29 Cal.3d 20, 34, 171 Cal.Rptr. 652, 623 P.2d 213 [prosecutorial comment upon a defendant's failure to `introduce material evidence or to call logical witnesses' is not improper].) Our rejection of defendant's specific claims of misconduct necessarily forecloses his additional claim of cumulative error and cumulative prejudice.