Opinion ID: 2581604
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Prosecution Argument Asking for Equal Mercy

Text: During closing arguments in the penalty phase, the prosecutor remarked, I ask you one final thing, that is to give the defendant the mercy that he gave Consuelo Verdugo. When he asked for your mercy here today through Mr. Harbin, you remember him on the stand denying anything that happened. Mr. Harbin says that he could be rehabilitated, I ask you to remember how he denied every single thing for hours on there. I ask you to show him the same mercy that he showed Consuelo Verdugo and to do justice here today, that is to sentence him to death. Thank you. Although defendant did not object, he now argues that the prosecutor's statements were an improper appeal to the passions and prejudices of the jury, and thereby constituted misconduct in violation of his rights to due process, a fair trial, and a reliable and individualized penalty determination in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution and parallel provisions of the state Constitution. To constitute a violation of the federal Constitution, prosecutorial misconduct must `so infect[ ] the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.' ( Valdez, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 122, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 271, 82 P.3d 296; Darden v. Wainwright (1986) 477 U.S. 168, 181, 106 S.Ct. 2464, 91 L.Ed.2d 144.) Conduct by a prosecutor that does not render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair is prosecutorial misconduct under state law only if it involves `the use of deceptive or reprehensible methods to attempt to persuade either the court or the jury.' ( Valdez, at p. 122, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 271, 82 P.3d 296, quoting Earp, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 858, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 857, 978 P.2d 15.) Because defendant did not object, and because an admonition would have cured any harm caused by the prosecutor's statements, he forfeited this claim of misconduct for appellate purposes. ( Valdez, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 122, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 271, 82 P.3d 296.) We also conclude this claim fails on the merits. In the penalty phase of a capital trial the jury may properly consider any sympathy or pity for the defendant raised by the evidence. ( Lockett v. Ohio (1978) 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973; Woodson v. North Carolina (1976) 428 U.S. 280, 304, 96 S.Ct. 2978, 49 L.Ed.2d 944; People v. Haskett (1982) 30 Cal.3d 841, 863, 180 Cal.Rptr. 640, 640 P.2d 776; People v. Robertson (1982) 33 Cal.3d 21, 56-59, 188 Cal.Rptr. 77, 655 P.2d 279.) The trial court should allow evidence and argument on emotional though relevant subjects that could provide legitimate reasons to sway the jury to show mercy or to impose the ultimate sanction. On the other hand, irrelevant information or inflammatory rhetoric that diverts the jury's attention from its proper role or invites an irrational, purely subjective response should be curtailed. ( Haskett, at p. 863, 180 Cal.Rptr. 640, 640 P.2d 776.) Considerable leeway is given for appeal to the emotions of the jury as long as it relates to relevant considerations. ( People v. Bittaker (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1046, 1110, fn. 35, 259 Cal.Rptr. 630, 774 P.2d 659.) The jury was instructed that they were allowed to consider sympathy, pity, compassion, and mercy for the defendant, as raised by the facts presented. [9] We have held that it is not inappropriate for the prosecution to urge the jury to show the defendant the same degree of mercy he showed his victim. (See People v. Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353, 464-465, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 408, 966 P.2d 442; People v. Edwards (1991) 54 Cal.3d 787, 840, 1 Cal. Rptr.2d 696, 819 P.2d 436.) In light of the aggravated nature of the offense, a reminder by the prosecution that Consuelo was helpless in the hands of the man to whom she had been entrusted and a suggestion that he deserved an equal measure of mercy did not constitute deceptive or reprehensible methods of persuasion, nor did such comments infect the trial with unfairness. (Cf. People v. Brown, supra, 33 Cal.4th at pp. 398-400, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 624, 93 P.3d 244.)