Opinion ID: 2508322
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Fabrication of evidence

Text: In his closing argument, the prosecutor said in reference to defendant's attempted murder of Davis: [W]hen [defendant] gets out of that car, he comes around with the gun extended in his right hand up in the ready position, he opens the door, he looks at his friend [Davis] and he says, `My friend, you are through, you're through. I'm going to kill you. You're not going to live to testify against me in the superior court trial. You're going to die. ' That's exactly what his intention is. (Italics added.) Pointing out that Davis testified defendant said only you're through after opening the car door, defendant contends the prosecutor fabricated evidence. While counsel is accorded `great latitude at argument to urge whatever conclusions counsel believes can properly be drawn from the evidence [citation],' counsel may not assume or state facts not in evidence [citation] or mischaracterize the evidence [citation]. ( People v. Valdez, supra, 32 Cal.4th 73, 133-134, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 271, 82 P.3d 296.) Whether the inferences the prosecutor draws are reasonable is for the jury to decide. ( People v. Dennis, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 522, 71 Cal. Rptr.2d 680, 950 P.2d 1035.) Here, the prosecutor did not fabricate evidence. After making the argument in question, he immediately said, That's exactly what [defendant's] intention is. The prosecutor thus merely suggested an inference that the jury could draw from Davis's testimony.