Opinion ID: 2508037
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Effect of Lourdes's Guilt Phase Testimony

Text: During his closing argument, the prosecutor described the Cardenas family as: A family living in a home, working family, Cesar Cardenas trying to run his printing business, Lourdes Cardenas working at St. Mary's Hospital. She has a little baby girl. Her mom living with them in the house. A family living in a residential neighborhood not bothering anybody. He later commented: To take a young man trying to live his life and work a job, help out the family, live with the family and turn him into this in his own home is inexcusable and warrants only one punishment. Defendant contends the foregoing comments exploited the prejudicial effect of what he claims was Lourdes's false testimony at the guilt phase that she had no idea what the perpetrators were referring to when they demanded, Give us what we want. (See ante, pt. II.B.3.) Specifically, defendant argues that the prosecutor relied on Lourdes's uncorrected testimony to present a false and misleading picture of the circumstances of the crimes in support of a death sentence. He also claims that the reliability of his death judgment was grievously undermined because the prosecutor was permitted to unfairly bolster the credibility of Lourdes, the prosecution's star witness. The People contend, as a procedural matter, that defendant's failure to object to the prosecutor's penalty phase comments forfeits review of his contentions on appeal. (See People v. Farnam, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 196, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 106, 47 P.3d 988; People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1177, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121, 954 P.2d 384.) Defendant counters that review is appropriate because any objection would have been futile in light of the court's evidentiary rulings regarding the recovery and return of the $31,600. (See People v. Arias, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 159, 51 Cal. Rptr.2d 770, 913 P.2d 980.) Even assuming these penalty phase contentions have not been forfeited, they are lacking in merit. As already explained ( ante, pt. II.B.3), the record does not establish that Lourdes's testimony was demonstrably false or misleading. Accordingly, the contentions lack foundation insofar as they are premised on the assumption that Lourdes gave false testimony at the guilt phase. The record, moreover, contains no evidence of the victims' involvement in drug dealing or any other crime. Although defendant had made an offer of proof that the out-of-state brother, Alex, may have been involved in drug trafficking and may have transported a gym bag containing $31,600 from the Cardenas home to a different residence just after the crimes, the trial court properly ruled that such evidence was inadmissible third party hearsay. ( Ante, pt. II.C.1.) Consequently, the prosecutor's commentsdescribing the victims as a working family who did not bother anybodywere perfectly appropriate in light of the evidence both before the jury and in the record. [11]