California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Smith, 108 Cal.Rptr. 698, 33 Cal.App.3d 51 (Cal. App. 1973):
As defendant contends, the italicized statements strongly imply that a finding of insanity would result in freeing the criminally insane and dangerous defendant. A number of California decisions hold that this kind of argument is prejudicial misconduct, because it misstates the law and because it conveys an inflammatory appeal to the jury to avoid exposing society to future danger. 8 Absence of an objection or admonition in the trial court will prevent the defendant from claiming prosecutorial misconduct on appeal except in two situations: first, where the case is closely balanced and the misconduct might have contributed materially to the verdict, and second, where the harm cannot be cured by a retraction or admonition. (People v. Lyons,50 Cal.2d 245, 263, 324 P.2d 556.) Both exceptions seem to describe a single idea--despite absence of an objection, misconduct will cause reversal if it caused a miscarriage of justice, that is, if there is a reasonable probability that it shifted the verdict. We find no reasonable probability here. There are several reasons.
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.