Opinion ID: 1194882
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 22

Heading: Comparing Defendant to a Terrorist During the Guilt Phase

Text: (22) During closing argument at the guilt phase, the prosecutor compared defendant to a terrorist. ( Ante, p. 308.) He contends that this characterization of him was misconduct that infected the penalty phase  specifically that it denied him a fair penalty trial, presumably in violation of various state or federal constitutional guaranties, or both (see People v. Memro, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 877 [construing 1977 death penalty statute]). As we stated in the guilt phase discussion, defendant failed to object to the remarks about which he now complains. Accordingly the point is not preserved for review. Moreover, we have noted that these remarks did not constitute misconduct even at the guilt phase, in which defendant's character was not at issue. If the prosecutor had compared him to a terrorist in argument at the penalty phase, no misconduct would have occurred. Such a declaration certainly [would have fallen] within the wide range of permissible argument at the penalty phase. ( People v. Osband, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 703.) Hence we cannot agree that the remarks to which he objects resulted in denying him a fair penalty trial.