Court Opinion

ID: 9746030
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 13:52:19.159729+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:08.035553
License: Public Domain

VOGEL, J., Dissenting.
Assuming misconduct, I do not believe it was prejudicial.1 Pedraza’s uncontroverted identification of Alvarado was absolute. He first noticed Alvarado when he was on the other side of the street, and watched as he approached. He became uncomfortable when he saw Alvarado’s tattoos and paid close attention to Alvarado’s appearance (and *1587thus was able to identify the specific tattoos on Alvarado’s arms and neck). He testified that: “When I realized that I was being robbed, I decided to pay attention to details so this person could be caught later on.” Pedraza described Alvarado to the police, and “positively]” identified him from a photographic lineup and again at trial.
Given this air-tight identification and the absence of any affirmative defense that might have given the jury an alternative scenario, I do not see how the prosecutor’s comment could possibly have affected the outcome. I would affirm the judgment.

 In my view, the only misconduct was the prosecutor’s affirmation of Alvarado’s guilt, and her other comments, in context, were permissible.