Opinion ID: 2637824
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: References to Punishment and Penalty

Text: Defendant also argues that the prosecutor improperly raised the subject of punishment and penalty in his guilt phase closing arguments by commenting on the strength of defendant's guilt and then stating, The simple truth is this trial went quickly and it's a precursor to the second trial in this case. Defendant also claims that the prosecutor injected the issue of punishment into his argument by stating that because defendant continued to stalk women after Sophia's murder he had no lessons learned in life. According to defendant, this statement implied that defendant could not be rehabilitated. Defendant has forfeited these claims on appeal because he failed to object to either of these statements. ( People v. Saunders (1993) 5 Cal.4th 580, 589-590 [20 Cal.Rptr.2d 638, 853 P.2d 1093].) In any event, even if defendant had preserved this issue, there was no error. (13) At the guilt phase, [a] defendant's possible punishment is not a proper matter for jury consideration. ( People v. Holt (1984) 37 Cal.3d 436, 458 [208 Cal.Rptr. 547, 690 P.2d 1207].) But the challenged comments could not have been interpreted to mean that the jury should consider punishment and penalty at the guilt phase. The first was, at best, an opaque reference to the penalty phase and did not attempt to sway the jury towards any particular punishment. The second was simply an observation about defendant's conduct and made no reference whatsoever to penalty.