Opinion ID: 844248
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Animal References

Text: The prosecutor spent much of closing argument asking the jury to focus rationally on the aggravating evidence, which she said was overwhelming, and to impose death because no meaningful basis for mercy in defendant's background or character was shown. After asking jurors to dismiss any suggestion that defendant was not the worst of the worst compared to other capital offenders, and reminding them of defendant's calculated violence against the Finzels, the prosecutor insisted he should be held accountable for his animalistic action. The prosecutor, who was nearing the end of her argument, referred a few more times to defendant as an animal and a predator who pursued sadistic passions. Meanwhile, defense counsel objected twice at the bench that such argument was improper and constituted misconduct. Both objections were overruled. Defendant now insists the prosecutor improperly waged a personal attack against him. The challenged remarks allegedly served no purpose other than to denigrate and degrade defendant before the jury. (16) The claim lacks merit. Prosecutorial argument may include opprobrious epithets warranted by the evidence. [Citation.] Where they are so supported, we have condoned a wide range of epithets to describe the egregious nature of the defendant's conduct. ( People v. Zambrano, supra, 41 Cal.4th 1082, 1172 [defendant is `evil,' a liar, and a `sociopath']; see People v. Friend, supra, 47 Cal.4th 1, 84 [defendant is an `insidious little bastard,' with `no redeeming social value,' and being `without feeling' or `sensitivity']; People v. Farnam (2002) 28 Cal.4th 107, 199-200 [121 Cal.Rptr.2d 106, 47 P.3d 988] [defendant is a `monster,' an `extremely violent creature,' and the `beast who walks upright'].) Here, defendant broke into the Finzel home late at night, while armed with a gun. One month earlier, he had expressed an interest in raping a woman at gunpoint. The evidence suggested that he stood in the backyard, smoking, and peered through gaps in the bedroom blinds before entering the house. After seeing, perhaps, that L. was the lone adult inside, he waited until her most vulnerable moment to strikewhile in bed with a baby by her side. After sexually assaulting and hog-tieing L., defendant positioned the bedroom door to ensure that Joseph, whom defendant knew might be arriving soon, would be shot by surprise with his own gun. Defendant then shot L. to prevent her from summoning help. He stayed in the house for hours collecting valuables, repeatedly checking on her condition and waiting for her to die. The property he stole from the couple included the wedding ring on Joseph's finger and anything else found in his turned-out pockets as he lay dead or dying on the floor. The epithets used by the prosecutor were not unreasonable or unfair in light of this evidence. We therefore conclude no misconduct occurred.