 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Robinson12/11/2000
R>
7. Appealing to the Jury's Sympathy for the Murder Victim and her Family
Defendant contends that the prosecutor committed misconduct (1) when he remarked during argument that the trial was not an "academic exercise" and that "nothing more important than this day and this moment for the people that love . . . Gloria De La Cruz"; (2) when he stated that he appreciated the attention the jurors had shown to the court proceedings, that "I know the family appreciates it," and that the jurors should give the same attention and courtesy to defense counsel during the defense argument; (3) when he argued in rebuttal that the circumstances of Gloria De La Cruz' death were horrible and that "she had potential, a future," a "career," and a "family that loved her"; and (4) when he argued in rebuttal that defendant took her life away and that the case was really about her. Defendant argues that such comments constituted misconduct since they were improper appeals to the jury's sympathy for the victim or the victim's family, and he argues that the misconduct was prejudicial since it is reasonably probable defendant would have obtained a more favorable outcome in the absence of the error.
We note that the comments were not emotionally charged and did not focus on the suffering of the victim or the surviving family members. The comments that the trial was important to the victim's family, and that the family appreciated the attention to the proceedings shown by the jurors may have been an improper reference to the family but did not appeal to the jury's passion and it is not reasonably probable that it had any effect on the outcome of the case. The comments that the victim had a future, a career (as a singer), and a family that loved her, were similarly improper and were equally inconsequential given the strength of the evidence against defendant. In light of defendant's prior rapes, his penchant for choking women, his statement that he would dump the body of an Oxnard woman in Los Angeles to get rid of the body, the DNA evidence from the vaginal swab, the relationship he had with the victim, and the yellow rope found at his residence, the brief comments made by the prosecutor in this case cannot be viewed as being prejudicial to defendant and it is not reasonably probable that he would have received a more favorable outcome if the comments had not been made. (See People v. Arias, supra, 13 Cal.4th at pp. 160-161; People v. Sanders (1995) 11 Cal.4th 475, 527; People v. Stansbury (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1017, 1057.)
8. Cumulative Error
Defendant argues that the cumulative effect of the alleged misconduct was prejudicial. We have found that most of his allegations of misconduct were unmeritorious, and as to the comments that constituted misconduct, we do not find any cumulative error that would require reversal of the judgment. (See People v. Bradford, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 1344.)
H. Cumulative Prejudicial Effect
Defendant argues that the cumulative effect of the alleged errors at trial was prejudicial and his conviction should be reversed. We do not find that any errors, either singly or in combination, reached the level of prejudice required to reverse a conviction obtained at trial.
[The remainder of this opinion is to be published.]
IV. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION
WEISMAN, J. *
We concur:
GRIGNON, Acting P.J.
GODOY PEREZ, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|