Opinion ID: 1386250
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Prosecutor's Comment on Uncontroverted Testimony

Text: In his statements to Officer Reyes, defendant sought to blame Karlos Tijiboy for the robbery and killings, saying first that Tijiboy had committed the crimes and later that Tijiboy, on behalf of the Colombian Mafia, had ordered defendant to do so. Tijiboy, testifying for the prosecution, denied any involvement in the murders of the Guerrero brothers. During argument, the prosecutor urged the jury to believe Tijiboy's testimony, noting that his testimony was uncontroverted. Defendant did not object. (12) Defendant now contends that the comment made by the prosecutor during closing argument indirectly focused the jury's attention on defendant's refusal to testify in violation of Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609, 615 [14 L.Ed.2d 106, 110, 85 S.Ct. 1229]. Because an admonition would have cured any possible prejudice that the prosecutor's comment might have had on the defense case, defendant's failure to object bars review of the issue. ( People v. Johnson (1989) 47 Cal.3d 1194, 1236 [255 Cal. Rptr. 569, 767 P.2d 1047]; People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 27-34 [164 Cal. Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468].) Moreover, the prosecutor's statement was a permissible comment on the state of the evidence, which did not offend Griffin. ( People v. Morris (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1, 35 [249 Cal. Rptr. 119, 756 P.2d 843]; People v. Ratcliff (1986) 41 Cal.3d 675, 691 [224 Cal. Rptr. 705, 715 P.2d 665].)