Opinion ID: 2633881
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Asserted Attack upon the Honesty and Integrity of Defense Counsel

Text: Defendant contends the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during closing argument by insinuating that defense counsel and appellant fabricated a defense shortly before trial, when the prosecutor mentioned that defendant met with defense counsel and the defense psychiatrist to clear up and get to the true version of what happened, and then argued that defendant's version of the killings was designed to avoid criminal responsibility for attempted rape, first degree felony murder, commission of a rape, and the special circumstances involving rape, and for no other reason. No misconduct occurred. The central issue at the trial was defendant's credibility. Defendant admitted he had learned before trial it would be beneficial to his defense if it was established he did not form the intent to have sexual intercourse with the victims until after they were dead. The prosecutor's statements constituted fair comment upon the evidence regarding the supposed need for defendant, who was the only living person who witnessed the killings, to meet with others to determine the truth of what happened, and a reasonable suggestion of a possible motive for defendant to lie about the murders. The prosecutor did not directly accuse defense counsel of encouraging defendant to lie, but even to the extent the statements swept counsel up in defendant's asserted lies, this was not an improper comment in the context of this case, in which defendant's story changed drastically during trial preparations. ( People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 862, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 857, 978 P.2d 15 [A prosecutor's suggestion or insinuation that defense counsel fabricated the defense is misconduct only when there is `no evidence to support that claim.'].)