California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Harmon, 7 Cal.App.4th 845, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 265 (Cal. App. 1992):
If such an ambiguous judicial slight is perceived by counsel, a more timely complaint than was made here is required. So too is a request for a curative admonition. (People v. Franklin (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 18, 24, 128 Cal.Rptr. 94 [Trial court turned its back to defense expert witness during his testimony. No curative admonition requested. No prejudicial error.].) As in People v. Franklin, the trial court instructed the jury: "I have not intended by anything I have ... done ... to intimate or suggest what you should [7 Cal.App.4th 853] find to be the facts, or that I believe or disbelieve any witness. [p] If anything I have done ... has seemed to so indicate, you will disregard it and form your own conclusion."
Appellant's contention is not well taken.
Page 270
5. Appellant contends the prosecutor committed misconduct.
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.