California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Seaton, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 441, 26 Cal.4th 598, 28 P.3d 175 (Cal. 2001):
Defendant argues the prosecutor committed repeated misconduct in his closing arguments to the jury. His failure to object to the alleged misconduct or to seek a jury admonition bars him from raising the issue on appeal. "To preserve for appeal a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, the defense must make a timely objection at trial and request an admonition; otherwise, the point is reviewable only if an admonition would not have cured the harm caused by the misconduct." (People v. Price, supra, 1 Cal.4th 324, 447, 3 Cal. Rptr.2d 106, 821 P.2d 610.) According to defendant, any objections to the conduct at issue would have exacerbated the problem, and therefore we should excuse his failure to object. We disagree. As we explain below, the vast majority of the statements cited by defendant were unobjectionable. As to the remainder, a timely objection and admonition would have cured the harm.
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.