Opinion ID: 2581010
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Expression of personal belief in defendant's guilt

Text: Defendant observes that at one point during closing argument, the prosecutor commented: That's the only reason we brought [these charges], is because they're true. Defendant asserts that this declaration of personal opinion amounted to flagrant misconduct and a violation of professional norms. (See, e.g., United States v. Young (1985) 470 U.S. 1, 7-8, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 84 L.Ed.2d 1; People v. Kirkes (1952) 39 Cal.2d 719, 726-727, 249 P.2d 1.) As the People observe, because the statement was not objected to below, and because a timely admonition would have cured any harm, this claim may not be asserted on appeal. ( Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d 1, 34, 164 Cal.Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468.) Moreover, we perceive no misconduct. What defendant fails to acknowledge, in this instance and many others discussed below, is the context in which the challenged phrase was uttered. The prosecutor's argument proceeded as follows: There's absolutely a lot of detail in this case. There's quite a bit of evidence. I tried to, fairly and accurately, represent to you what I think the evidence in this case has shown. But what I fully expect, as I indicated at the outset, to put the People to your test. You test these charges. We need you to do that. We have no expectation that you're going to return a verdict of `guilty,' unless you're convinced beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that [defendant], in fact, on [the Fourth of July], 1989  that he killed these three people. That's the only reason we brought them, is because they're true. And the evidence has demonstrated that beyond any reasonable doubt. [¶] But I have never asked you to take my word for it. You take a look at the evidence in this case, ladies and gentlemen. And there is but one reasonable interpretation. We didn't hear another reasonable interpretation. It was conspicuous in its absence; wasn't it? But the fact it wasn't mentioned, doesn't mean our burden is over. You put the People to test. You do that after deliberating with the other eleven members of the panel. And once you do that, there is but one reasonable interpretation of all of this evidence: [Defendant] is guilty as charged. (Italics added.) In context, it is clear that the prosecutor's message was that the jury should examine the evidence and conclude for itself whether defendant was or was not guilty  and the prosecutor urged that the evidence was reasonably susceptible of only a determination of guilt. We discern no misconduct. But even assuming misconduct, there would have been no prejudice. The trial court repeatedly instructed the jury that the arguments of counsel were not evidence and that the jury was required to decide the case based upon the evidence adduced at trial. In light of the evidence and the instructions under which the jury was directed to deliberate, the prosecutor's brief remark, accompanied as it was by proper comments concerning the evidence and the jury's role as fact finder, resulted in no miscarriage of justice within the meaning of the Constitution. ( Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d 1, 34, 164 Cal.Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468.)