California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Melendez, H037581 (Cal. App. 2013):
federal Constitution, conduct by a prosecutor that does not result in the denial of the defendant's specific constitutional rights ... but is otherwise worthy of condemnation, is not a constitutional violation unless the challenged action " 'so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.' " [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (People v. Fuiava (2012) 53 Cal.4th 622, 679.)
"If a prosecutorial misconduct claim is based on the prosecutor's arguments to the jury, we consider how the statement would, or could, have been understood by a reasonable juror in the context of the entire argument. [Citations.]" (People v. Woods (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 106, 111.) " ' "A prosecutor is given wide latitude during argument. The argument may be vigorous as long as it amounts to fair comment on the evidence, which can include reasonable inferences, or deductions to be drawn therefrom. [Citations.] It is also clear that counsel during summation may state matters not in evidence, but which are common knowledge or are illustrations drawn from common experience, history or literature." [Citation.] . . .' " (People v. Ward (2005) 36 Cal.4th 186, 215 (Ward).)
"In general, ' " 'a defendant may not complain on appeal of prosecutorial misconduct unless in a timely fashion and on the same groundthe defendant [requested] an assignment of misconduct and [also] requested that the jury be admonished to disregard the impropriety.' " ' [Citation.]" (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1184-1185 (Young).)
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.