What rights does a defendant have to make a closing argument in a criminal bench trial?

A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to present closing argument to the trier of fact. (Herring v. New York (1975) 422 U.S. 853, 862-865 [invalidating statute that allowed trial court to completely deny closing summation in criminal bench trial].) However, a trial court has broad discretion to control the scope of closing argument provided the defendant is not precluded from making his central point. (See People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal.4th 799, 854-855.) As explained in Herring, the constitutional right to present closing arguments does not mean "closing arguments in a criminal case must be uncontrolled or even unrestrained. The presiding judge must be and is given great latitude in controlling the duration and limiting the scope of closing summations. He may limit counsel to a reasonable time and may terminate argument when continuation would be repetitive or redundant. He may ensure that argument does not stray unduly from the mark, or otherwise impede the fair and orderly conduct of the trial. In all these respects he must have broad discretion." (Herring, supra, at p. 862, italics added.)

A defendant also has a constitutional right to " 'a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.' " (Crane v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 683, 690.) However, a trial court retains the discretion to prevent presentation to the jury of matters that are marginally relevant or that pose an undue risk of confusion of the issues. (See id. at pp. 689-690.) Further, of relevance here, there is no constitutional requirement that a trial

Page 11

court give the jury the option of convicting the defendant of an uncharged lesser offense that is related to, but not necessarily included in, a charged offense. (Hopkins v. Reeves (1998) 524 U.S. 88, 96-97.) Thus, unless the prosecution agrees to instruction on a lesser related offense, a defendant has no right to compel presentation of this lesser verdict option to the jury. (People v. Valentine (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1387.)