Does a defense counsel's failure to object to the court's discussion of reasonable doubt constitute ineffective assistance of counsel?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Nails, A128270 (Cal. App. 2012):
Defense counsel did not object to the court's initial discussion of reasonable doubt, to the prosecutor's remarks during closing argument, or to the court's reasonable doubt instruction. Respondent argues that appellant has therefore forfeited this issue on appeal. Appellant asserts that he has not forfeited his right to raise this issue because the alleged errors affected his substantial rights. (See People v. Johnson, supra,
Page 36
115 Cal.App.4th at p. 1172 [appellate court may review any instruction given even if no objection was made thereto in trial court, " ' "if the substantial rights of the defendant were affected" ' "].) The prosecutor's comments during closing argument were not "instructions," and appellant forfeited his claim of prosecutorial misconduct on appeal by failing to object to the prosecutor's comments and request an admonition. (See People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 820.) Appellant asserts, nonetheless, that counsel's failure to object constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
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.
