Opinion ID: 1127477
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Reference to Defendant as a Biker

Text: Defendant contends that the prosecutor committed misconduct by characterizing defendant as a biker in violation of his First Amendment guarantee of freedom of association, and for the purpose of inflaming and biasing the jury. Defendant waived this argument by failing to object. ( People v. Berryman, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 1072.) It is also meritless. The prosecutor stated: You will hear that Mr. Davenport also went by the name of Dave or Honda Dave. As you can see in the court well right now, there is a Honda 350, which at the time and on that particular evening was owned by Mr. Davenport and that was his means of transportation. You will hear that Mr. Davenport, among other things, was an individual who liked to frequent a bar ... for individuals who are biker types  biker-type individuals, a biker bar or motorcycle enthusiast. Contrary to defendant's assertion, there is no reasonable likelihood that any prospective juror understood this statement to imply that defendant was a member of a dangerous motorcycle gang. Moreover, remarks made in an opening statement cannot be charged as misconduct unless the evidence referred to by the prosecutor was so patently inadmissible as to charge the prosecutor with knowledge that it could never be admitted. ( People v. Wrest (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1088, 1108 [13 Cal. Rptr.2d 511, 839 P.2d 1020].) Here, evidence that the Sit 'N Bull Bar was frequented by motorcycle enthusiasts or bikers, and that defendant relied on a motorcycle as his means of transportation, scarcely can be characterized as patently inadmissible; defendant does not attempt to argue otherwise.