Opinion ID: 2594480
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Suggestion of sexual assault

Text: The information did not allege defendant sexually assaulted either murder victim. Defendant argues the prosecution nevertheless took advantage of several opportunities to suggest a sexual assault had occurred, thereby bringing up an issue that was irrelevant and highly inflammatory. First, defendant complains that the prosecutor elicited testimony to the effect that blood consistent with defendant's blood was near the fly of the jeans defendant left at Benny Garcia's house the day after the murders and that the button of the jeans, which police found in Hickman's apartment, appeared to be ripped from its position. Defendant argues this testimony suggested to the jury that defendant had sexually assaulted Hickman. Defendant did not object to the testimony on this basis at trial, and therefore he forfeited the issue. ( People v. Williams, supra, 16 Cal.4th at pp. 208-209, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 123, 940 P.2d 710.) Moreover, we reject defendant's argument on the merits. Using the word fly when describing a particular location on a pair of pants is not, in itself, sexually suggestive and does not, in this context, imply a sexual assault. As for the opinion testimony that the button was ripped from the jeans, the evidence was relevant to support the inference that the button came off in the course of a struggle with Hickman, explaining to some extent why it happened to be lying on the floor near Hickman's body. Defendant next complains that, when his own counsel asked the medical examiner on cross-examination if there was any evidence of a sexual assault of either victim, the examiner said: There was no evidence to substantiate ... that a forceful assault had occurred. (Italics added.) Defendant argues that, by qualifying the answer with the word forceful, the witness implied a sexual assault may have occurred, but defendant does not explain how an answer to a question of his own counsel could amount to prosecutorial misconduct. We find no misconduct. Defendant also asserts prosecutorial misconduct based on testimony that a yellow foreign substance was on one side of a shard of glass police investigators found in Hickman's bedroom. Defendant asserts the testimony led the jury to believe that the yellow substance was semen. Defendant did not object to this testimony at trial, and therefore he forfeited the issue. ( People v. Williams, supra, 16 Cal.4th at pp. 208-209, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 123, 940 P.2d 710.) Moreover, defendant's characterization of the testimony as implying the presence of semen has no merit. Deputy Sheriff Dale Falicon testified that he searched Hickman's apartment for fingerprints. He found defendant's palm print on a glass shard lying beneath the broken window and concluded that the print was on the inside of the window glass because the opposite side was dirtier and had water spots. In that context, Falicon testified that the dirty side of the glass had a dried yellow substance on it, as did the screen that police found lying outside the apartment on the ground. Neither the witness nor the prosecutor ever suggested this substance was semen, and the more natural inference was that it was something from the outside environment that had dirtied the window screen and the outside of the window before the window was broken. Defendant further argues the prosecutor committed misconduct by eliciting the testimony that Hickman had stab wounds to the rectum area. Defendant did not object to this questioning at trial, and therefore he forfeited the issue. ( People v. Williams, supra, 16 Cal.4th at pp. 208-209, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 123, 940 P.2d 710.) Moreover, we find no misconduct. Sergeant Charles Rosales testified as to the condition of Hickman's body when he found her. The prosecutor asked him to identify a photograph of Hickman's leg showing several stab wounds, and Sergeant Rosales said, One of her legs, and then added without prompting, There were approximately five stab wounds to the legs[,] to the rectum area. The prosecutor then proceeded with questioning about a different subject, and defendant later elicited testimony from the medical examiner, clarifying the location of Hickman's wounds. Furthermore, the medical examiner's report indicates that Hickman suffered a stab wound to the right buttock near the anus, as well as several to the back of her right thigh. When a crime involves a stab wound to the buttock near the anus, a defendant cannot complain if a police officer refers to the location of this wound as the rectum area. Defendant also reasserts his objection to the photographs of Converse's naked body, this time claiming prosecutorial misconduct in connection with their use as evidence. He also complains about the testimony of prosecution witnesses who identified these photographs and described the condition of Converse's body when police found her. We also find no prosecutorial misconduct in the presentation of this evidence and the related testimony. When the victim of a murder has been stabbed directly between the breasts and left with her pants and underwear around her ankles, the defendant cannot complain of prosecutorial misconduct based on the presentation of evidence accurately depicting and describing the victim's nudity. Defendant next complains that the prosecutor, during redirect examination of the medical examiner, elicited the testimony that the absence of trauma to the genital organs of the murder victims did not necessarily exclude the possibility of sexual assault, because often no such trauma is caused during a rape or sexual assault. Defendant did not object to this line of questioning at trial, and therefore he forfeited the issue. ( People v. Williams, supra, 16 Cal.4th at pp. 208-209, 66 Cal. Rptr.2d 123, 940 P.2d 710.) Moreover, defense counsel was the one who first raised the issue of sexual assault, cross-examining the witness at length about his efforts to obtain sexual assault evidence and eliciting that the witness had found no evidence to substantiate, from bruises and lacerations to the vagina, that a forceful assault had occurred. The prosecution could have objected to this line of questioning on relevancy grounds, but he did not, and we express no opinion as to whether such an objection would have been valid. Nevertheless, once defendant placed before the jury testimonial evidence that no sexual assaults had occurred, the prosecutor was entitled to obtain the clarification that the medical examiner's findings did not rule out the possibility of sexual assault. The prosecutor's inquiry was limited to clarifying what factual conclusions the jury could reasonably draw from testimony defendant had elicited on cross-examination. In those circumstances, his questioning was not error. ( People v. Steele (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1230, 1247-1249, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 432, 47 P.3d 225.) Finally, defendant complains about the prosecutor's statements during closing argument that Converse was tied up, like an animal and stripped, for somefor some reason. Defendant forfeited this issue by not objecting at trial to the prosecutor's argument. ( People v. Williams, supra, 16 Cal.4th at pp. 208-209, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 123, 940 P.2d 710.) In addition, we find no misconduct. The prosecutor made these statements to describe the ways in which the stabbing of Converse shows a careful thought process. The fact that Converse was immobilized and stripped (that is, her pants and underwear were pulled down to her ankles) was relevant to show the mental state of her killer. Moreover, the prosecutor stopped himself before speculating as to why Converse's pants and underwear had been removed.