California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Potts, 245 Cal.Rptr.3d 2, 436 P.3d 899, 6 Cal.5th 1012 (Cal. 2019):
People v. Hines (1997) 15 Cal.4th 997, 1061, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 594, 938 P.2d 388.) Defendant's interpretation of that exception to the forfeiture rule would seem to imply that any issue reviewable de novo may be raised for the first time on appeal, even when, as here, information about the prosecutor's intonation would be relevant, but is not revealed by the trial transcripts. Such an exception would allow a defendant to invalidate an entire trial based on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct that could have been easily remedied by a timely objection and an admonition. We decline to extend the exception to the circumstances presented here, or to excuse the forfeiture as a matter of discretion.
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.