Opinion ID: 1281413
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: The Claims of Misconduct

Text: The prosecutor argued that defendant had murdered the victim on the bet that he might have a few dollars in his pocket, and went on to state, he'll do it again. Because, life means nothing to him. Defense counsel's objection on grounds that the argument was totally improper was sustained, and the jury admonished to disregard it. Immediately thereafter, the prosecutor conditioned his comments by explaining: Ladies and gentlemen, the evidence shows clearly that the only reason that Keith Adcox murdered David Lee Orozco was on a guess that he had a few dollars in his pocket ...., and went on to suggest that such evidenced a lack of concern or value for human life. (Italics added.) (42) Relying on People v. Murtishaw (1981) 29 Cal.3d 733 [175 Cal. Rptr. 738, 631 P.2d 446], defendant assails these comments as an improper reference to future dangerousness. His reliance is misplaced. We recently held that a prosecutor's comments on a defendant's future dangerousness are `within the proper bounds of argument to the jury.' ( People v. Davenport [, supra, ] 41 Cal.3d 247, 288.) In reaching this conclusion, we distinguished People v. Murtishaw [, supra, ] 29 Cal.3d 733, 767-768, where expert opinion regarding projections of future violence was held to be inadmissible. In Murtishaw, our primary concern was that expert opinion on the subject of defendant's propensity to commit violence is unreliable and frequently erroneous and often carries great weight with the jury. ( Id. at pp. 767-768.) We do not believe a prosecutor's comments during closing arguments present the same potential for prejudice. ( People v. Miranda, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 111.) As was the case in Miranda, here too the comments did not deprive defendant of a fair trial on the issue of penalty. (44 Cal.3d at p. 111; Darden v. Wainwright (1986) 477 U.S. 168, 181 [91 L.Ed.2d 144, 157, 106 S.Ct. 2464, 2472].) (43) Of the five remaining allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, none was objected to below, nor were any curative admonitions sought. Because defendant failed to object to any of the challenged arguments or comments at trial, he is precluded from now raising the objections on appeal. ( People v. Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 34.) Defendant seeks to overcome the waiver rule by asserting that counsel's failure to object to the prosecutor's misconduct in each instance deprived him of the effective assistance of counsel. (See People v. Fosselman, supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 584.) In light of this further claim we shall briefly discuss the merits of each assignment of misconduct: