Opinion ID: 1127477
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Prosecutorial Stance on Sexual Character of Offense

Text: (18) Defendant contends the prosecutor improperly changed his position regarding the sexual character of the crime in violation of defendant's due process rights. Defendant waived this argument by failing to object. ( People v. Berryman, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 1072.) It is also meritless. As defendant acknowledges earlier in his brief in this court, during Hovey voir dire the prosecution took the position that voir dire concerning prospective jurors' adult experiences with sexual victimization were relevant, but that childhood experiences were not. (Italics added.) During his opening statement, the prosecutor said: Now later on Mr. Davenport will somewhat deny this and try and paint a picture of just being there and not really having much interest in [Lingle]. But I believe the evidence will demonstrate, throughout the course of the trial, Mr. Davenport had a real interest in her that night and was attempting to make a hustle for her. Given that Lingle was 28 years old at the time of her death, and the sexual overtones of the crime, no inconsistency is apparent.