Opinion ID: 2512108
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Comment on defendant's refusal of consent to search.

Text: In his opening argument, the prosecutor asserted that defendant was interrogated by the police, denied involvement, and offered an alibi. The prosecutor then stated, After the denial by the defendant, a request was made for the defendant to consent to the search of the place he was staying at, meaning Lisa Henry's house. He denied such consent. Defense counsel promptly objected. The court responded, The jury can disregard that. When defense counsel asked whether the court was going to assign prosecutorial misconduct, the court stated, No, I'm not going to assign prosecutorial misconduct. I'm going to ask the jury to disregard that. Assuming, as defendant contends, that the prosecutor committed misconduct by commenting on defendant's exercise of his Fourth Amendment right to refuse consent to a search and by arguing evidence that would be inadmissible at trial, the court's response was sufficient to resolve the problem. The court immediately askedi.e., politely admonishedthe jury to disregard the argument, and later instructed the jury that [s]tatements made by attorneys during the trial are not evidence. Defendant insists a far more elaborate cautionary instruction was required, such as that suggested in People v. Bolton (1979) 23 Cal.3d 208 [152 Cal.Rptr. 141, 589 P.2d 396] ( Bolton ). There the prosecutor twice insinuated in his closing remarks that, but for the rules of evidence, he could present information about the defendant's past crimes. This court found significant misconduct, though no prejudice in light of the overwhelming evidence that the defendant was guilty as charged. In a dictum footnote, Bolton contemplated what, short of outright reversal, is an effective remedy for improper prosecutorial argument. Bolton expressed the view that a mere verbal rebuke may be an insufficient deterrent, and stated that the trial court must give a cautionary instruction on request if it believes misconduct occurred. In that instance, Bolton proposed, the court should tell the jury that the prosecutor's remarks were unwarranted, improper, uncalled for, unsupported by any evidence, and an attempt to prejudice the jury, and that, if they caused the jury to convict the defendant, the court would have to declare a mistrial. ( Bolton, supra, at pp. 215-216, fn. 5.) Here, defense counsel asked if the court was going to assign misconduct, but counsel did not request a Bolton -type instruction. [29] Accordingly, and given the fleeting nature of the prosecutor's remark, the court's admonition to the jury to disregard it was sufficient to cure any harm. We see no abuse of discretion in the trial court's handling of the matter.