Opinion ID: 2599854
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged Prosecutorial Misconduct: Invoking the. Bible

Text: Defendant contends the prosecutor committed misconduct in closing argument by arguing biblical support for a sentence of death. Thus, during closing argument, the prosecutor argued the aggravating evidence was overwhelming and substantial in comparison to the mitigating evidence and then said: And do not, ladies and gentlemen  don't  sometimes at the end of a trial [someone] will say only God could take a life. God didn't take Beatrice Loza's life. He didn't sanction that. God had nothing to do with it. When someone says at the end of this trial, oh, only God can do it, sometimes at the end of the trial, you will hear some kind of talk like, well, if you send him to prison he will die in prison anyway. Oh, okay. [¶] Gee, Beatrice Loza died in that bedroom, a very painful, humiliating, disgusting death, and the law provides if aggravating circumstances substantially outweigh the mitigating, this is the appropriate penalty. There was no immediate objection. During surrebuttal, defense counsel referred to the story of Cain and Abel (though not by name) and in telling the story, said: Well, where is your brother? [¶] And the  the other brother said to him, well, I am not my brother's keeper. Why are you asking me? Counsel thereafter argued the person in the story who killed his brother was not sentenced to death but was instead banished from the land for the balance of his life. After argument had concluded, defense counsel, in chambers, objected to the prosecutor's biblical reference. As if anticipating the argument that he, too, had invoked the Bible in his argument, counsel argued: There was no invocation of God [in] my closing arguments or rebuttal of that, and I believe [the prosecutor's argument] was inappropriate. The trial court overruled the belated objection, explaining that the prosecutor's argument was not an invocation in any way in my judgment, based upon these comments, to have biblical justification for doing  for doing what was done, [¶] In fact, I thought it is somewhat to the contrary, saying, look, this is a secular proceeding and it is a secular decision that we have to make. At the threshold, we find defendant forfeited this issue by failing to make a timely objection. ( People v. Slaughter (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1187, 1209, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 477, 47 P.3d 262 [failure to object to biblical reference forfeits the claim for appeal]; People v. Barnett, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 1122, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121, 954 P.2d 384 [objection to evidence must be timely].) Had he objected when the prosecutor first made reference to God, the trial court could have intervened and cured any possible prejudice. Nor is the failure to timely object excused by any alleged deficient performance by defense counsel, for there is no suggestion in the record that counsel lacked a tactical reason for his failure to object. ( People v. Gray, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 207, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 451, 118 P.3d 496.) Indeed, the record suggests defense counsel wished to make an oblique reference to the biblical story of Cain and Abel in an attempt to convince the jury to spare defendant's life. [13] Were we to find defendant had preserved the claim, we would find no error. Although any reference to biblical authority is fraught with danger ( People v. Roldan, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 743, 27 Cal. Rptr.3d 360, 110 P.3d 289), we agree with the trial court that, in the circumstances of this case, the prosecutor's comments did not improperly ask the jury to apply biblical authority in lieu of California law or otherwise appeal to a higher authority. Finally, even if the prosecutor's comments were improper, the misconduct was harmless under any standard; the comments in question were brief and the argument undeveloped. ( People v. Wrest (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1088, 1107, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 511, 839 P.2d 1020.)