Opinion ID: 2829984
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Combined Prejudice

Text: Relying on the alleged judicial misconduct flowing from the trial court‘s comment, ―I know the temptation‖ (ante, pt. I.B.2.), the allegedly improper admission of exhibit 46, the list of ―America‘s Most Wanted Samoans‖ (ante, pt. I.B.1.d.), and the prosecutor‘s alleged misconduct in questioning Tautai regarding that gang status list, as well as whether he sought a plea deal (ante, pt. I.B.4.d.), defendant contends the combined effect of these alleged errors requires reversal even if the errors do not individually rise to the level of prejudicial error. We have held a number of instances of prosecutorial misconduct may act synergistically to create an atmosphere of prejudice more intense than the sum of its parts. (People v. Hill, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 845; see People v. Vance (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1182, 1207 [reversing judgment based on a combination of errors, citing Hill].) Here defendant seeks to combine alleged judicial and evidentiary errors with prosecutorial misconduct. But as explained, ante, the claim of judicial misconduct (―I know the temptation‖) was forfeited, meritless, and harmless. Nor did prejudice occur when the trial court initially admitted exhibit 46 over defendant‘s objection. All that remains is defendant‘s claim of prosecutorial misconduct. As explained ante, in part I.B.1., the prosecutor did not commit misconduct by questioning Tautai about the gang status list. And as explained, ante, in part I.B.4.d., any error occurring during the prosecutor‘s questioning of Tautai about prior plea bargain negotiations was harmless because Tautai denied seeking a plea bargain, the prosecutor did not introduce any evidence of such negotiations, and the jury was instructed not to consider insinuations suggested by questions that are not supported by evidence. (CALJIC No. 1.02.) Even considering these matters 65 together, we find the cumulative prejudice flowing from these errors did not render the guilt phase of defendant‘s trial fundamentally unfair.