Opinion ID: 2570148
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reference to Portrait of a Serial Killer

Text: During closing argument, the prosecutor said, I think you need to remember some testimony by Hannah, . . . when she said there was this one movie that so bothered her and scared her, that [defendant] kept watching over and over again. And I asked her at first for the name, and she couldn't remember the name. So I said, well, was it about a guy who was a serial killer and rapist and who had beenwhose father was a truck driver and . . . once dressed him in a dress to punish him, and ultimately he did all these serial killings and so forth, and then came to San Bernardino to continue? And she still wasn't quite sure about that. Later on I asked her, well, was the movie that scared you the James Bond movie or the Terminator, whatever it was? And she said, no, it was that other one you were talking about. And I said, the Portrait of a Serial Killer? And she says yeah. [23] Defense counsel objected at sidebar that the name of the movie was not admissible. The court overruled the objection, noting the name of the movie was discussed during Hannah's testimony, and that certainly counsel can refer to the actual testimony. It then admonished the jury: The jury is, of course, again reminded that the statements of the attorneys are not evidence. And if there's any question about what the actual evidence or testimony was you can consult your own memories or notes or, if necessary, have the reporter read back the transcript of the proceedings if there's any question as to any actual testimony. Defendant contends the prosecutor's argument regarding the motion picture was inflammatory and prejudicial because it relied not on evidence, but on the prosecutor's questions. He claims the prosecutor effectively invited the jury to compare [defendant's] life to this movie and invoked a terrifying image of a serial killer preying upon the very community where the trial took place. Defendant did not make this claim below. Again, no exception is applicable; it is therefore forfeited. ( People v. Gray, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 215.) The argument is also meritless, for the most part. Defendant is correct that Hannah did not recall the name of the movie, so the title itself was not in evidence. Defense counsel's objection on this point was well taken; however, the court promptly admonished the jury that the statements of counsel were not evidence and referred it to the actual testimony of the witness. Furthermore, the circumstance that the prosecutor provided the title of the movie had limited impact, given that Hannah did recognize the plot of the movie as the one that had frightened her. The prosecutor mentioned the plot in the context of arguing that defendant wanted to be the baddest of the bad. . . . [H]e chose this lifestyle. Description of a violent movie plot with which defendant was fascinated was appropriate in this circumstance. Moreover, contrary to defendant's contention, nothing in the prosecutor's description of the film made the jury believe the prosecutor had information that was not available to them. Considering the argument as a whole, the reference to Portrait of a Serial Killer was not in itself prejudicial. Furthermore, given the evidence of the crimes committed by defendant, it is inconceivable that the jury was swayed to vote for death because it learned he had repeatedly watched this movie.