Opinion ID: 4118870
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Videotape Montage in Closing Argument

Text: During closing argument, the prosecutor played an 18-minute videotape depicting several photographs of Beeson throughout her life and, briefly, in death. The audio track consisted of recorded excerpts from Iva Mosley‘s interview and the defendants‘ police statements. All of the visual and auditory material in the videotape had previously been admitted in evidence. There was no accompanying music. After watching the videotape and hearing arguments from counsel, the court ruled that it could be played as a demonstrative aid during closing argument but would not be admitted into evidence. We have addressed the admissibility of victim impact videotapes frequently, cautioning that courts should not permit evidentiary presentations with overly dramatic or emotional elements, stirring music, or irrelevant images. (E.g., People v. Prince (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1179, 1289; see also People v. Sandoval (2015) 62 Cal.4th 394, 440-442; People v. Kelly, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 798.) However, unlike many other videotapes we have considered, here every image and sound presented in the videotape had already been admitted in evidence. The prosecutor did not seek to introduce new evidence through the videotape. Instead, he used the content of admitted items of evidence to make his points as a matter of argument. As in People v. Bramit (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1221, 1241, ―the videotape 67 was simply ‗a repackaging of the evidence‘ ‖ and was a permissible exercise of advocacy. Defendant complains that the juxtaposition of victim images with excerpts from the confessions was misleading or inflammatory. The trial court rejected these assertions. We have viewed the videotape and agree that the presentation was not prejudicial. In People v. Wash (1993) 6 Cal.4th 215, 256, the prosecutor displayed slides of the crime scene and victims during opening statement while simultaneously playing audio portions of the defendant‘s confession. Over defendant‘s objection that the presentation was inflammatory, we concluded the prosecutor had committed no misconduct because the slides and recordings were later admitted in evidence and their use as demonstrative aids during argument was appropriate. (Id. at pp. 256-257.) The same is true here. The jury had previously received all of the videotape‘s images and sounds during trial. While the juxtaposition of confessions with images of the murdered victim may have been evocative, the videotape contained no ― ‗irrelevant or inflammatory material‘ ‖ that could have ― ‗divert[ed] the jury‘s attention from its proper role or invite[d] an irrational, purely subjective response.‘ ‖ (People v. Prince, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 1289-1290.) Moreover, because defense counsel were the last to present arguments, they were free to comment on the prosecutor‘s presentation or offer rebuttal.