People v. Morales
Citation | 25 Cal.4th 34,18 P.3d 11,104 Cal.Rptr.2d 582 |
Decision Date | 05 March 2001 |
Docket Number | No. S059461.,S059461. |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. David Hans MORALES, Defendant and Appellant. |
Richard Jay Moller, Garberville, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.
Daniel E. Lungren and Bill Lockyer, Attorneys General, George Williamson and David P. Druliner, Chief Assistant Attorneys General, Carol Wendelin Pollack, Assistant Attorney General, Jaime L. Fuster, Brenda G. O'Neil, William T. Harter and Jeffrey Kahan, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Certiorari Denied October 1, 2001. See 122 S.Ct. 133.
We granted review to decide whether a prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct in his summation to the jury in a criminal case. We conclude that the prosecutor's actions do not require that defendant's conviction be reversed.
In an information filed December 8, 1995, defendant was charged with violating Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a), by possessing phencyclidine (PCP). (See also id., § 11055, subd. (e)(3)(A).) It was alleged that he had two prior (Pen.Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i); id., § 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) robbery (id., § 211) convictions and had served a prior prison term within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).
On the evening of November 3, 1995, defendant's wife asked Los Angeles police officers to help her husband, who was outside in the police station parking lot. The officers found him sitting in the opening of the sliding door of a van that was parked askew with the driver's door also open. The officers ordered him to stand up and put his hands on his head. He slowly complied, but only after they gave the order several times. They noticed that he was sweating, had a blank stare, and exuded an odor revealing the presence of ether, in turn revealing the use of phencyclidine. They removed a partly exposed vial from under the driver's seat, containing a liquid that also exuded a strong ethereal odor attributable to PCP.
In the station, a police officer trained to recognize signs of drug use observed defendant and ran tests on him. One test, however—of urine to detect PCP's presence—defendant ultimately refused to take (after initially agreeing to do so), even after a police officer admonished him that he had no constitutional right to avoid it.1
The officer determined that defendant was under the influence of PCP. The vial's contents also were tested. An expert witness testified that the vial held a solution containing about three cubic centimeters of PCP.
A police officer who helped arrest defendant testified he did not know who owned the van or who had driven it to the police station.
Following the presentation of evidence at trial, the jury was instructed regarding PCP possession: "Every person who possesses ... phencyclidine ... is guilty of the crime of illegal possession of a controlled substance, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377(a).
With those impending instructions in mind, the parties presented their summations.
In his initial closing argument, the prosecutor said, The prosecutor summarized the evidence that defendant was under the influence of PCP when the police found him, [¶] ... [¶] ...
Defense counsel made his closing argument, in which he tried to persuade the jury that the prosecution had presented no direct evidence that defendant possessed PCP—"[n]obody saw anybody in direct control of [the vial]"—and that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to convict him. Counsel emphasized that "unless the proved circumstances are, one, not only consistent with the theory that the defendant is guilty of the crime, but cannot be reconciled with any other rational conclusion, a finding of guilty as to any crime may not be based on circumstantial evidence." There was
[¶] ... He asked why, if the state wanted to solidify its case, it had failed to take fingerprints. "Where is the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Morales exercised control over that vial?"
The prosecutor responded: 2
The prosecutor reminded the jury of the evidence that both defendant and the vial exuded the "distinct" odor attributable to a PCP solution.
In sum, having referred to the jurors' life experience, the prosecutor argued that they could conclude defendant consumed PCP voluntarily, knowing what it was, for the purpose of intoxicating himself with it.
Along with those we have already described, the trial court instructed the jurors in other matters relevant here.
Regarding its role and that of the attorneys, the trial court orally instructed, (The written instruction omitted the last eight words.)
And regarding the method of evaluating circumstantial evidence, the trial court instructed, "a finding of guilt as to any crime may not be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Denard
...to the court's attention by a timely objection. Otherwise no claim is preserved for appeal. [Citation.]" (People v. Morales (2001) 25 Cal.4th 34, 43–44, 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 582, 18 P.3d 11 ; People v. Tafoya (2007) 42 Cal.4th 147, 184, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 163, 164 P.3d 590.) Nevertheless, an appella......
-
People v. Johnson
...the CALCRIM jury instructions are not themselves legal authority. This is true, as far as it goes. (See People v. Morales (2001) 25 Cal.4th 34, 48, fn. 7, 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 582, 18 P.3d 11 ["jury instructions, whether published or not, are not themselves the law, and are not authority to esta......
-
Davis v. Johnson
......Appellant was "very guarded" with her belongings, "always accusing people of touching or moving or messing with her stuff." Both appellant's mother and grandmother kept their houses immaculately clean and, as an adult, ...(Cf. People v. Morales (2001) 25 Cal.4th 34, 47 [104 Cal.Rptr.2d 582, 18 P.3d 11] [presuming jury relied on court's instructions, not arguments of counsel, in convicting ......
-
Amezcua v. Lizarraga
...argument cannot be cured by objection. (Fuvia, supra, at p. 679; People v. Jablonski (2006) 37 Cal. 4th 774, 835; People v. Morales (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 34, 43-44.)During closing arguments, the prosecutor said that he could prove corpus delicti of the offenses involving Jane Doe 2 by showing ......
-
Closing argument
...during closing argument, counsel may: • Make a clear and concise statement of the party’s major contentions. People v. Morales (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 34, 44, 104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 582. • Comment on the credibility of witnesses. People v. Sandoval (1992) 4 Cal. 4th 155, 182-183, 14 Cal. Rptr 2d 342;......
-
Table of cases
...Cal. Rptr. 3d 1, §22:20 Morales, People v. (2020) 10 Cal. 5th 76, 266 Cal. Rptr. 3d 706, §§13:30, 17:90, 17:110 Morales, People v. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 34, 104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 582, §§21:30, 21:110 Morales, People v. (1989) 48 Cal. 3d 527, 257 Cal. Rptr. 64, §3:10 Morales, People v. (2021) 67 Ca......
-
Joyce L. Kennard: an independent streak on California's highest court.
...court sustained defense counsel's objection to (4)--the only statement to which an objection was made at trial). (69) People v. Morales, 18 P.3d 11, 21 (Cal. 2001) (Kennard, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (considering the prosecutor's comments "highly improper," but refusing......