California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Franks, G040386 (Cal. App. 10/20/2009), G040386 (Cal. App. 2009):
The prosecutor did state that defense counsel had not disclosed a witness on the witness list. Defendant is correct that an attack on the integrity of defense counsel can amount to misconduct. (People v. Gionis (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1196, 1215.) But the prosecutor's statement did not speak to defense counsel's integrity, and is not misconduct either. Likewise, there was no misconduct when the prosecutor gave an alternative explanation for a witness's possible evasive answers by pointing out the questions were not clear.
With regard to all three areas of alleged prosecutorial misconduct, it does not appear defendant requested the court to admonish the jury not to consider the prosecutor's statements. Defendant does not argue otherwise and we are satisfied that an admonition by the court would have cured any harm. (People v. Smith (2003) 30 Cal.4th 581, 633.) Under the state of the record before us, defendant forfeited his claim of prosecutorial misconduct. In any event, defendant's claims lack merit.
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.