California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Seumanu, 192 Cal.Rptr.3d 195, 355 P.3d 384, 61 Cal.4th 1293 (Cal. 2015):
Doyle error grounds. (People v. Collins (2010) 49 Cal.4th 175, 202, 110 Cal.Rptr.3d 384, 232 P.3d 32 [an objection is required to preserve Doyle error for appellate review].) Defendant acknowledges this omission but contends the unusual circumstances of this case would render the application of the forfeiture rule itself fundamentally unfair. We are not convinced. The prosecutor's line of argument connecting defendant's willingness to delay the commencement of his trial to the credibility of his alibi witnesses (who came forward relatively late in the process) was not, as defendant claims, sudden and unforeseen, and defendant's failure to object was not excusable on that ground. Nor are we convinced by defendant's argument
[192 Cal.Rptr.3d 232]
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.