Opinion ID: 1170931
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Misleading Voir Dire.

Text: (10) Several of the prosecutor's questions during voir dire properly implied that the jurors should not let their judgment at the guilt phase be swayed by undue pity or sympathy for the youthful defendant or his family members who might be present in the courtroom. Some of the questions, however, may have implied that these considerations would also be improper at the penalty phase. Defendant argues the questions were reversible misconduct, but the lack of an objection waived any such claim on appeal. ( People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 27 [164 Cal. Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468].) Moreover, any such error was later cured by instructions that counsel's questions were not themselves evidence or definitive statements of the law, and by the special penalty phase instruction that pity and sympathy for the defendant would be proper considerations. (11) Defendant also assigns as misconduct the prosecutor's questions put to several prospective jurors about whether they knew what life imprisonment without the possibility of parole really meant. We reject defendant's claim that the questions constituted reversible Ramos error ( People v. Ramos (1984) 37 Cal.3d 136 [207 Cal. Rptr. 800, 689 P.2d 430]); no Briggs Instruction concerning the Governor's commutation power was given in this case, nor was the jury otherwise affirmatively informed of such gubernatorial powers. To the extent the questions invited improper speculation, any error was clearly harmless. They arose at the earliest stage of trial, and the jury was thereafter instructed not to assume the truth of any insinuations suggested by the attorneys' questions.