Opinion ID: 2594480
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: Closing argument regarding defendant's intoxication

Text: Defendant claims the prosecutor committed misconduct by arguing to the jury that intoxication was irrelevant unless it rose to the level of unconsciousness. The prosecutor made no such argument. As noted, the trial court instructed the jury in accordance with CALJIC No. 8.47 to the effect that a killing done while unconscious as a result of voluntary intoxication and without intent to kill [or] malice aforethought is involuntary manslaughter. The prosecutor explained this instruction to the jury as follows: When we're talking about drunkennessbeing drunk or being under the influence of drugs as it relates to murder, for it to be involuntarily murder, for it to go down that low, the jury instructions ... state that the level has to be one of unconsciousness. (Italics added.) The prosecutor's comments about unconsciousness were clearly directed to the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter. The prosecutor did not tell the jury that intoxication was otherwise irrelevant, and in any case, the court instructed the jury that, as to robbery, burglary, murder, and the great bodily injury allegation, it should consider [intoxication] in determining whether defendant had [the requisite] specific intent. Defendant also faults the prosecutor for stressing throughout his argument that defendant acted as if conscious. Defendant did not object to this argument at trial, and therefore he forfeited the issue. ( People v. Dennis (1998) 17 Cal.4th 468, 521-522, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 680, 950 P.2d 1035; People v. Williams, supra, 16 Cal.4th at pp. 208-209, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 123, 940 P.2d 710.) Moreover, the prosecutor merely argued that defendant's actions showed intent and planning. The prosecutor was entitled to assert his interpretation of what the evidence showed. We find no prosecutorial misconduct.
Defendant argues that, even if no single error warrants reversal of the judgment, the cumulative effect of all the errors necessitates reversal. We have found no prejudicial error, and therefore defendant's argument is without merit.