Opinion ID: 1121458
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Attack on Dr. Raffle

Text: (37) Defendant next contends that the prosecutor committed misconduct by personally attacking Dr. Raffle by referring to him numerous times as a liar during cross-examination and summation. Defendant again failed to object to many of the questions and statements of which he now complains, thus waiving his objections. We further conclude that, after reviewing Dr. Raffle's testimony and the testimony of other experts during trial, it is apparent that sufficient discrepancies existed for the prosecutor to question Dr. Raffle's veracity. Under these circumstances, it was not prejudicial misconduct for the prosecutor to refer to Dr. Raffle during closing argument as a liar, since this was one inference that could be drawn from the testimony admitted during trial. ( People v. Pinholster (1992) 1 Cal.4th 865, 948 [4 Cal. Rptr.2d 765, 824 P.2d 571] [prosecutor is permitted to urge, in colorful terms, that defense witnesses are not entitled to credence].)