Opinion ID: 2626390
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alleged Inflammatory Remarks

Text: Defendant insists the prosecutor prejudiced the jury against him in the following ways: (1) referring in opening statements to the aggravating evidence as shocking, vicious, and unspeakable, (2) asking M. on direct examination to describe defendant's bad acts even though they might be difficult to discuss, and (3) suggesting in closing argument that defense counsel should not have cross-examined M. about the tissues she used to clean herself after being sodomized as a child. Defendant objected successfully to the foregoing remarks. However, he failed to request a curative admonition below, and offers no excuse for not doing so on appeal. We agree with the Attorney General that the claims are barred. ( People v. Hill, supra, 17 Cal.4th 800, 820, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 656, 952 P.2d 673.) Nevertheless, we see no harm even assuming some misconduct occurred. None of the incidents seemed so serious or inflammatory that they would prevent jurors from following their instructions and ignoring material as to which an objection had been sustained. ( People v. Padilla, supra, 11 Cal.4th 891, 956-957, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 426, 906 P.2d 388.) Defendant also claims the prosecutor improperly referred in closing argument to Carol and Valery C. as innocent victims who suffered pain and degradation at defendant's hands. The prosecutor observed that, at the time of the crimes, Carol was a wife and mother, and Valery was a pregnant and homeless teenager. First, defendant failed to object at trial. We therefore agree with the Attorney General that defendant has forfeited the present claim. ( People v. Cole, supra, 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1233, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 532, 95 P.3d 811.) Second, the challenged remarks constituted permissible victim impact argument under Payne, supra, 501 U.S. 808, 825, 111 S.Ct. 2597. As noted earlier, the prosecutor was free to ask penalty jurors to consider any special traits that made the victims vulnerable to attack, and the unique pain that either the victims or their families experienced as a result of the charged crimes. The record supports the prosecutor's arguments. The trial was not fundamentally unfair in this regard. (E.g., People v. Cole, supra, 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1233-1234, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 532, 95 P.3d 811 [allowing argument about physical pain defendant inflicted on victim during surprise attack]; People v. Boyette, supra, 29 Cal.4th 381, 444, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 544, 58 P.3d 391 [allowing argument about emotional grief and loss experienced by victims' families].)