Opinion ID: 1155733
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Prosecutor's Argument About Defendant's Future Dangerousness

Text: During his penalty phase arguments, and over defendant's objection, the prosecutor rhetorically asked the jury, How many of you would like your son or husband being a guard wherever this man may be? How many of you would like your husband or son being a transportation officer handling him and you think you would feel safe? (18) Defendant contends the foregoing argument was improper, relying on a federal decision, Tucker v. Francis (11th Cir.1984) 723 F.2d 1504, 1507, cert. den. 478 U.S. 1022 [92 L.Ed.2d 743, 106 S.Ct. 3340], which disapproved prosecutorial argument speculating on possible murders of prison guards if the defendant were imprisoned. We have held that expert testimony may not be elicited in a capital case on the subject of the defendant's future dangerousness. ( People v. Murtishaw (1981) 29 Cal.3d 733, 773-775 [175 Cal. Rptr. 738, 631 P.2d 446].) We have also stated, however, that We do not believe a prosecutor's comments during closing arguments present the same potential for prejudice as the expert evidence involved in Murtishaw. ( People v. Miranda, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 111; see People v. Silva (1988) 45 Cal.3d 604, 639 [247 Cal. Rptr. 573, 754 P.2d 1070]; People v. Dyer, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 81; People v. Davenport, supra, 41 Cal.3d at p. 288.) We conclude that the prosecutor's brief argument quoted above fell within the range of argument permitted by the foregoing cases.