Opinion ID: 2584893
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Assertedly Improper Questions Appealing to Jurors' Fear

Text: On direct examination, advisory counsel asked defendant several questions as to how a death sentence might affect defendant's family. Defendant's response included a statement that he considered members of the Cryps ( sic ) and Bloods gangs, who were watching this trial, to be part of his family. Defendant added that if he were sentenced to death, it would cause a very negative reaction with the youngsters. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked defendant about his statement that gang members were watching the trial, and defendant said they were watching it [v]ery closely. In response, the prosecutor asked, Okay, very closely. And when you said that, I had images of a Los Angeles riot coming to mind. Is that what you meant by that threat, sir? Defendant answered, No. The prosecutor asked defendant, You wouldn't want to threaten this jury or this system by anything outside of the evidence, now, would you? Defendant responded, Even though I have denounced this system for its injustice, I would not threaten anyone. I don't make threats. The prosecutor countered by asking whether defendant's comment to the defense psychologist, Dr. Leitman, concerning defendant's difficulty in not attacking the prosecutor during trial was a threat. [35] Defendant again answered, No. [36] The prosecutor also asked two correctional officers, who testified for the defense concerning the level of risk defendant posed while incarcerated, whether they would be willing to allow defendant to reside in their homes. The trial court sustained defendant's objection to the question to one of the witnesses but overruled the objection to the other. On appeal, defendant contends the prosecutor, through these questions, improperly sought to instill fear in the jury in order to prejudice defendant. Defendant forfeited his challenges to some of these questions by failing to object. In any event, we see no prejudicial misconduct. The questions regarding whether defendant intended to threaten the jury by testifying that criminal gangs were very closely watching the trial were appropriate to clarify defendant's own (potentially threatening) testimony and to impeach his testimony that he never made threats. Similarly, the questions to the correctional officers were colorful attempts to impeach their testimony that defendant was a minimal security risk. Even if we were to conclude that the questions were misconduct, any misconduct was harmless when these isolated instances are considered in the context of the entire penalty phase of the trial.