When a prosecutor said that appellant had failed to produce any evidence at trial, and the appellant failed to present any evidence to the jury, is that comment improper or harmless?

The prosecutor was not commenting on appellant's failure to testify, but on appellant's failure to call logical witnesses. This was not improper. (See People v. Turner, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 419.) Nor did the prosecutor's comments impermissibly shift the burden of proof to appellant. (See People v. Bradford (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1340 [distinction clearly exists between permissible comment that a defendant has not produced any evidence, and improper statement that a defendant has a duty or burden to produce evidence or to prove his or her innocence].) Immediately following the prosecutor's remarks, the court emphasized to the jury that appellant was not required to present any evidence at trial. More importantly, the prosecutor's comments were "brief and mild" and there was no suggestion that the jury should draw an inference of guilt from appellant's failure to present this evidence. Thus, even if the comments were improper, any error was harmless. (People v. Turner, supra, 34 Cal.4th at pp. 419-420.) The mistrial motion was properly denied.

Appellant asks that we conduct an independent review of the reporter's transcript of the trial court's in camera examination of the police personnel records to determine whether any documents were incorrectly withheld. (See People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1228-1232.) We have done so, and find no basis for the release of information beyond that ordered released by the court with respect to any of the involved officers.

Page 16

The judgment is affirmed.