Opinion ID: 2633881
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Asserted Denigration of Defendant's Evidence in Mitigation

Text: Defendant claims the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by arguing the entire defense in this case is to blame others, by calling the defense that had been presented penalty phase madness, and by referring to defendant as a snitch in discussing his assistance to the authorities at the jail. In view of the lack of objection at trial, these challenges have been forfeited. They also lack merit. There was nothing deceptive or reprehensible about these comments, and they did not, individually or cumulatively, improperly denigrate defendant's evidence in mitigation.
Defendant contends the prosecutor's argument highlighted what the prosecutor viewed as a lack of evidence in mitigation and accordingly was an indirect invitation to the jury to find that the absence of such evidence constituted an aggravating factor. (See People v. Davenport (1985) 41 Cal.3d 247, 289-290, 221 Cal.Rptr. 794, 710 P.2d 861.) Defendant did not object or request an admonition in response to this argument and therefore has forfeited this challenge. In any event, the prosecutor never stated that the absence of a statutory mitigating factor amounted to an aggravating factor; to the contrary, he described such a circumstance as neutral. There is nothing improper in arguing that mitigating factors are not present and that, by contrast, the facts of the crimes are aggravating factors under section 190.3, factor (a)which is the argument made by the prosecutor in this case. ( Clark, supra, 5 Cal.4th at pp. 1030-1031, 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 689, 857 P.2d 1099.)