Opinion ID: 1179776
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Conjugal Visits Argument.

Text: Delores Garcia testified for the defense that she loved defendant and intended to marry him regardless of his fate. On cross-examination, the prosecutor elicited her understanding, based on her study of prison rules, that if defendant received a sentence of life without parole, she and her children could visit him over weekends in a private space. Defense counsel later argued to the jury that the love Garcia had expressed for defendant was a reflection that he had some good qualities. In his rebuttal argument, the prosecutor suggested that Garcia's testimony had nothing to do with the proper sentence for defendant. The prosecutor questioned whether it is appropriate to consider sending the defendant to state prison for life where he may engage in the reward of conjugal visits with his wife, where he may engage in the reward of visiting with his family at Christmastime and other times, maybe receive the disability payments that Mr. Enomoto talked about. Defendant claims the references to conjugal visits and other possible benefits of prison life were improper. Trial counsel's silence waives the issue on appeal, and it lacks merit in any event. Defendant first suggests there was no evidence to support the reference to conjugal and family visits. However, it was clearly based on Garcia's testimony that she had studied up on prison rules, understood she and her children would be eligible to make such visits, and intended to do so. Defendant also asserts the argument went beyond the relevant sentencing factors, which are limited to the circumstances of the capital offense and the character and background of the offender. (See ง 190.3.) However, rebuttal argument is not limited to the statutory sentencing factors. (E.g., People v. Rodriguez (1986) 42 Cal.3d 730, 791 [230 Cal. Rptr. 667, 726 P.2d 113].) Here, the prosecutor sought only to place Garcia's mitigating testimony in its proper perspective, and to remind the jurors that the sentence defendant sought would allow him to enjoy benefits and relationships, as with Garcia, which he had forever denied his victim. As such, the argument was proper. [36] Defendant asserts we have condemned penalty argument which suggests the defendant will receive a free ride unless sentenced to death. But the case on which he principally relies, People v. Polk (1965) 63 Cal.2d 443 [47 Cal. Rptr. 1, 406 P.2d 641], is materially distinguishable. There, capital defendants were already under indeterminate life sentences for other crimes, and the prosecutor argued that another indeterminate life term would therefore mean nothing. We deemed such an argument misleading, because it implied the Adult Authority would violate its duty to take the second sentence into account when deciding the total length of actual confinement. ( Id. at p. 450.) No such vice appears here. Defendant's claim of misconduct lacks merit.