California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Mitcham, 1 Cal.4th 1027, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 230, 824 P.2d 1277 (Cal. 1992):
The prosecutor's comments in the present case referred to matters extraneous to the penalty determination. They were too indefinite, however, to have prejudiced defendant. He did not refer to the actual possibility of release by such means as escape or commutation, but averred only as a matter of common sense to the reality that an imprisoned criminal will probably always be seeking release. The prosecutor's remarks here are similar to, but less direct than, those in People v. Hovey, supra, 44 Cal.3d 543, 581, 244 Cal.Rptr. 121, 749 P.2d 776 (" 'Laws can change, people can escape and the crime is too awful ...' "). There we found no prejudicial error in such remarks, characterizing them as matters of common knowledge likely to be appreciated by every juror making the penalty determination. We conclude no prejudicial misconduct occurred in the present case.
Page 265
[1 Cal.4th 1078] [824 P.2d 1312] L. Failure to reinstruct the jury on general principles.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.