Opinion ID: 1194882
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Comparing Defendant to a Terrorist in Rebuttal Argument

Text: (15a) Defendant contends that the prosecutor committed misconduct in his rebuttal closing argument by comparing him to a terrorist and that the court did not cure the harm. He claims that these lapses resulted in an unfair trial in violation of unspecified provisions of the state and federal Constitutions. In the course of argument, the prosecutor said, you know, a woman, going to a mall should be able to go to Penney's and shop, and buy some  a baby shower gift without being kidnapped, raped and murdered. I mean, this isn't any better than a terrorist attack. They have something in common. Terrorists don't pick their victims  they pick their victims at random, and so did these two men. They just picked her at random. [¶] People should be able to go shopping at a mall and not have to endure this. So we all say `They should do something.' `They should do this; they should do that.' Well, guess what? You're the `they.' You're the `they.' And you've always been the `they.' The People contend that defendant failed to ask the court to assign misconduct to the remarks. This is true. Accordingly, the claim was not preserved for review. We reject defendant's reply that counsel was ineffective for failing to object, for the remarks were not inappropriate and an objection would have been meritless. (16) A defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel under the federal or state Constitution must show both deficient performance under an objective standard of professional reasonableness and prejudice under a test of reasonable probability of a different outcome. ( People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 216-218 [233 Cal. Rptr. 404, 729 P.2d 839].) (15b) Defendant is unable to show that counsel's performance was deficient. In the main, the prosecutor was reminding the jury of its civic duty to return, as he said soon after in the same argument, a true verdict based on the evidence in the case. This was valid argument. (See People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 723 [55 Cal. Rptr.2d 26, 919 P.2d 640].) His reference to terrorism was fair under the circumstances. When discussing sex and kidnapping offenses involving the elements of force, fear, and lack of consent, the prosecutor was entitled to argue the existence of those elements in vigorous terms. ( People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 160 [51 Cal. Rptr.2d 770, 913 P.2d 980]; see also People v. Pensinger (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1210, 1251 [278 Cal. Rptr. 640, 805 P.2d 899] [no misconduct in calling the defendant a `perverted maniac' during guilt phase argument].) It was not deficient for counsel to fail to register a meritless objection.