Opinion ID: 2387024
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Appealing to the jurors' passion or prejudice

Text: (16) Defendant claims that various statements by the prosecutor were intended to appeal to the jurors' passion or prejudice. It is, of course, improper to make arguments to the jury that give it the impression that `emotion may reign over reason,' and to present `irrelevant information or inflammatory rhetoric that diverts the jury's attention from its proper role, or invites an irrational, purely subjective response.' [Citation.] ( People v. Padilla (1995) 11 Cal.4th 891, 956-957 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 426, 906 P.2d 388], overruled on other grounds in Hill, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 823, fn. 1.) Defendant did not object to any of the prosecutor's statements on this basis, and therefore has forfeited this claim. As explained below, the claim also fails on the merits. The first challenged comments were made when the prosecutor argued that the evidence of defendant's guilt was overwhelming, and the defense wants you just to look at the things that will walk [defendant] out of here .... As noted above, the prosecutor expressed concern that one of the jurors would not understand the relevant facts. I am very concerned, representing the State, that one of you has missed the focus of this trial. And that is a nightmare to me. That one of the [jurors] that I'm looking at just doesn't get it. I know most of you have common sense. ... [¶] If this man went to Alpha Beta with the intent to rob and do a burglary, he is guilty of special-circumstance murder. [¶] I lie awake at night worrying that you people will not get it. It is not about what color his shoes were, what color his wig was, what hand he held the gun in, whether Brenda Rambo was emotional. Does that change whether he killed Timothy McVeigh? Does it matter that he's five-eight or six-two? Of course not. (Italics added.) Defendant asserts the italicized comments engaged the personal pride of the jurors, injected into the case broader issues than [defendant's] guilt[,] and invited the jury to render a verdict based upon their personal pride or public opinion. Viewed in context, however, the statements merely emphasized the prosecutor's argument that the evidence of guilt was overwhelming, and that jurors should not become distracted by irrelevant circumstances or arguments. The prosecutor's arguments focused the jury on its role, did not invite an irrational or emotional response, and did not refer to public opinion. The cases cited by defendant do not support a contrary conclusion. [25] The second challenged comment was made in response to an inconsistency in the defense's argumentthe defense continued to question the witnesses' identification of defendant as the perpetrator of these crimes, but also focused upon mitigating evidence, such as the circumstance that the perpetrator did not shoot Rambo. The prosecutor commented, They can't tell you on the one hand, ... some gunman robbed Alpha Beta and Brenda Rambo, yet the defendant is a nice guy for not shooting Brenda Rambo.... [¶] ... [¶] ... After he shot her friend in cold blood, he's a good guy now? [¶] Maybe it's me. Maybe my priorities are screwed up, I don't know. Maybe you think he is a nice guy. (Italics added.) The prosecutor then noted that the robbery of the Alpha Beta market occurred six weeks after the shooting of Shahbakhti, and they want you to think he's kind, not coldly calculating? Defense counsel then object[ed] to this argument. It is beyond the scope, and it is not in response to anything I said. The court overruled the objection. Defendant asserts the italicized comment engaged the jurors' personal pride. Viewed in context, the comment is merely a criticism of the suggestion that defendant's decision not to shoot Brenda Rambo should be considered in resolving the issues presented. The comment did not invite an irrational or emotional response from the jury. Finally, the prosecutor stated: If twelve people from this community, after hearing all this evidence, finding the wigs, the murder weapon, the bullets in his house, if you cannot reach a decision on this, we are in sad shape. [¶] So that's what I'm asking you to do. The success of this system depends on people such as you to work together back there.... Don't get in there and express an emphatic opinion. Keep open. You have to work together. This is a deliberation process. (Italics added.) Defendant does not explain how the italicized comment improperly appealed to the jury. Therefore, we need not consider this challenge. (See People v. Catlin (2001) 26 Cal.4th 81, 133 [109 Cal.Rptr.2d 31, 26 P.3d 357] ( Catlin ) [because defendant fails to offer any authority or argument in support of [his] claim, ... it is not considered here]; People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1182 [74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121, 954 P.2d 384] ( Barnett ) [because defendant fails ... to support that claim with adequate argument[, w]e ... reject it as not properly raised].) The claim also fails on the merits. The statement emphasized the strength of the prosecution's case and did not invite an irrational or emotional response from the jury.