misconduct claim in California

2023(People v. Crew (2003) 31 Cal.4th 822, 839 (Crew); People v. Bell (1989) 49 Cal.3d 502, 534, 542 (Bell); People v. Castillo (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 364, 386 (Castillo).) If the prosecutorial misconduct or error renders the defendant’s trial fundamentally unfair under the federal Constitution, reversal of the judgment is required unless the misconduct or error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

2016Moreover, viewing the challenged statements in context, we do not believe there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood him to be making such an argument."].) Absent a fundamentally unfair trial under the federal Constitution, prosecutorial misconduct or error does not require reversal of the judgment unless it was prejudicial under state law, i.e., it is reasonably probable the defendant would have obtained a more favorable verdict absent the misconduct or error. ( Bell, supra, 49 Cal.3d at pp. 534, 542; 6 People v. Castillo (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 364, 386 (Castillo); People v. Cr

2023(People v. Crew (2003) 31 Cal.4th 822, 839 (Crew); People v. Bell (1989) 49 Cal.3d 502, 534, 542 (Bell); People v. Castillo (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 364, 386 (Castillo).) If the prosecutorial misconduct or error renders the defendant’s trial fundamentally unfair under the federal Constitution, reversal of the judgment is required unless the misconduct or error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

2016Moreover, viewing the challenged statements in context, we do not believe there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood him to be making such an argument."].) Absent a fundamentally unfair trial under the federal Constitution, prosecutorial misconduct or error does not require reversal of the judgment unless it was prejudicial under state law, i.e., it is reasonably probable the defendant would have obtained a more favorable verdict absent the misconduct or error. ( Bell, supra, 49 Cal.3d at pp. 534, 542; 6 People v. Castillo (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 364, 386 (Castillo); People v. Cr

2025(See Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 970, 979 [“Whether the particular misconduct is a bar to the alleged claim for relief depends on (1) analogous case law, (2) the nature of the misconduct, and (3) the relationship of the misconduct to the claimed injuries.”]; see also Dickson, Carlson & Campillo v. Pole (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 436, 447 [“Whether the defense applies in particular circumstances depends on the analogous case law, the nature of the misconduct, and the relationship of the misconduct to the claimed injuries.”].) Because Defendants fail to discus

2025(See Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 970, 979 [“Whether the particular misconduct is a bar to the alleged claim for relief depends on (1) analogous case law, (2) the nature of the misconduct, and (3) the relationship of the misconduct to the claimed injuries.”]; see also Dickson, Carlson & Campillo v. Pole (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 436, 447 [“Whether the defense applies in particular circumstances depends on the analogous case law, the nature of the misconduct, and the relationship of the misconduct to the claimed injuries.”].) Because Defendants fail to discus

2024(See People v. Cortez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 101, 133 [rejecting a misconduct claim challenging prosecutor’s 17 comments on reasonable doubt based on, among other factors, the fact that the court properly defined reasonable doubt and the jury had written instructions during deliberations].) “The jury is presumed to have followed the trial court’s instructions in the absence of any indication it was unwilling or unable to do so.” (People v. Letner and Tobin (2010) 50 Cal.4th 99, 196 .) In People v. Centeno (2014) 60 Cal.4th 659 (Centeno), on which defendant principally relies, one of the problems wi

2023(People v. Centeno (2014) 60 Cal.4th 659, 667 .) “ ‘To preserve a misconduct claim for review on appeal, a defendant must make a timely objection and ask the trial court to admonish the jury to disregard the prosecutor’s improper remarks or conduct, unless an admonition would not have cured the harm.’ ” (People v. Davis (2009) 46 Cal.4th 539, 612 .) The Supreme Court has had at least two occasions to address claims where the defense did not object to prosecutorial argument referring to a defendant as a “monster.” (People v. Chatman (2006) 38 Cal.4th 344, 407 ; People v. Sully (1991) 53 Cal.3d

2025To preserve a misconduct claim for review on appeal, a defendant must make a timely objection and, unless an admonition would not have cured the harm, ask the trial court to admonish the jury to disregard the prosecutor’s improper remarks or conduct. [Citation.]” (People v. Martinez (2010) 47 Cal.4th 911, 955-956 .) A finding of prosecutorial misconduct requires “‘a reasonable likelihood that the jury construed or applied any of the complained-of remarks in an objectionable fashion.’” (People v. Carter (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1215, 1263 .) A prosecutor is given wide latitude during closing argument.

2025To preserve a misconduct claim for review on appeal, a defendant must make a timely objection and, unless an admonition would not have cured the harm, ask the trial court to admonish the jury to disregard the prosecutor’s improper remarks or conduct. [Citation.]” (People v. Martinez (2010) 47 Cal.4th 911, 955-956 .) A finding of prosecutorial misconduct requires “‘a reasonable likelihood that the jury construed or applied any of the complained-of remarks in an objectionable fashion.’” (People v. Carter (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1215, 1263 .) A prosecutor is given wide latitude during closing argument.

2024Past improper conduct 13 or prior misconduct that only indirectly affects the problem before the court does not suffice.” (Kendall-Jackson, supra, 76 Cal.App.4th at p. 979 .) “‘The issue is not that the plaintiff’s hands are dirty, but rather “‘“that the manner of dirtying renders inequitable the assertion of such rights against the defendant.”’”’ [Citation.] The misconduct ‘must prejudicially affect . . . the rights of the person against whom the relief is sought so that it would be inequitable to grant such relief.’”’” (Ibid.) “The misconduct which brings the [un]clean hands doctrine into op

2020(See Unilogic, Inc. v. Burroughs Corp. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 612, 620 .) And we have already summarized the nature of the misconduct.

2021To preserve a misconduct claim for review on appeal, a defendant must make a timely objection and ask the trial court to admonish the jury to disregard the prosecutor’s improper remarks or conduct, unless an admonition would not have cured the harm.” (People v. Davis (2009) 46 Cal.4th 539, 612 [ 94 Cal.Rptr.3d 322 , 208 P.3d 78 ] (Davis).) Defense counsel’s failure to object and request an admonition waives a misconduct claim on appeal “unless an objection would have been futile or an admonition ineffective.” (People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 159 .) Under state law, when the claim “focuse

2017“As a general rule a defendant may not complain on appeal of prosecutorial misconduct unless in a timely fashion – and on the same ground – the defendant made an assignment of misconduct and requested that the jury be admonished to disregard the impropriety. [Citation.]” (People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 841 .) The failure to object and request an admonition “waives a misconduct claim on appeal unless an objection would have been futile or an admonition ineffective. [Citations.]” (People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 160 ; People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 820 .) In any event, the

2024Proc., § 2018.010 et seq.; § 1054 et seq.) A prosecutor’s conduct violates the federal Constitution when it “ ‘so infect[s] the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.’ ” (Darden v. Wainwright (1986) 477 U.S. 168, 181 (Darden).) “Conduct that does not render a trial fundamentally unfair is error under state law only when it involves ‘ “ ‘the use of deceptive or reprehensible methods to attempt to persuade either the court or the jury.’ ” ’ ” (Bennett, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 595 ; see People v. Friend (2009) 47 Cal.4th 1, 29 (Friend).) When a miscondu

2024“To preserve a misconduct claim for appellate review, a defendant must make a timely objection and ask the trial court to admonish the jury to disregard the remark (or conduct) unless such an admonition would not have cured the harm.” (Booker, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 184 .) At no point, either during the argument itself or during earlier proceedings, did the defense object that the prosecutor’s presentation was improper.

2025“To preserve a misconduct claim for review on appeal, a defendant must make a timely objection.” (People v. Davis (2009) 46 Cal.4th 539, 612 ; see People v. Gamache (2010) 48 Cal.4th 347, 370-371 .) Here, though defense counsel referred to possible violations of the ICAC standards at various points, he did not argue the sheriff’s department engaged in outrageous conduct and does not appear to have moved to dismiss on that ground.

2024(People v. Wallace (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1032, 1070 .) “Under the federal Constitution, a prosecutor commits reversible misconduct only if the conduct infects the trial with such ‘“unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.”’ [Citation.] By contrast, our state law requires reversal when a prosecutor uses ‘deceptive or reprehensible methods to persuade either the court or the jury’ 18 [citation] and ‘“it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the defendant would have been reached without the misconduct”’ [citation].” (People v. Davis (2009) 46 Cal.4th 53

2016(People v. Hinton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 839, 863 ; People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 858 .) Absent a fundamentally unfair trial under the federal Constitution, prosecutorial misconduct or error does not require reversal of the judgment unless it was prejudicial under state law, i.e., it is reasonably probable the defendant would have obtained a more favorable verdict absent the misconduct or error.

2016(People v. Hinton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 839, 863 ; People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 858 .) 28 Absent a fundamentally unfair trial under the federal Constitution, prosecutorial misconduct or error does not require reversal of the judgment unless it was prejudicial under state law, i.e., it is reasonably probable the defendant would have obtained a more favorable verdict absent the misconduct or error.

2023(People v. Crew (2003) 31 Cal.4th 822, 839 (Crew); People v. Bell (1989) 49 Cal.3d 502, 534, 542 (Bell); People v. Castillo (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 364, 386 (Castillo).) If the prosecutorial misconduct or error renders the defendant’s trial fundamentally unfair under the federal Constitution, reversal of the judgment is required unless the misconduct or error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

2016Moreover, viewing the challenged statements in context, we do not believe there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood him to be making such an argument."].) Absent a fundamentally unfair trial under the federal Constitution, prosecutorial misconduct or error does not require reversal of the judgment unless it was prejudicial under state law, i.e., it is reasonably probable the defendant would have obtained a more favorable verdict absent the misconduct or error. ( Bell, supra, 49 Cal.3d at pp. 534, 542; 6 People v. Castillo (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 364, 386 (Castillo); People v. Cr

2025(See Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 970, 979 [“Whether the particular misconduct is a bar to the alleged claim for relief depends on (1) analogous case law, (2) the nature of the misconduct, and (3) the relationship of the misconduct to the claimed injuries.”]; see also Dickson, Carlson & Campillo v. Pole (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 436, 447 [“Whether the defense applies in particular circumstances depends on the analogous case law, the nature of the misconduct, and the relationship of the misconduct to the claimed injuries.”].) Because Defendants fail to discus

2025(See Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 970, 979 [“Whether the particular misconduct is a bar to the alleged claim for relief depends on (1) analogous case law, (2) the nature of the misconduct, and (3) the relationship of the misconduct to the claimed injuries.”]; see also Dickson, Carlson & Campillo v. Pole (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 436, 447 [“Whether the defense applies in particular circumstances depends on the analogous case law, the nature of the misconduct, and the relationship of the misconduct to the claimed injuries.”].) Because Defendants fail to discus

2023(See People v. Rivera (2019) 7 Cal.5th 306, 335 [prosecutor’s error was harmless under either standard where there was strong evidence of guilt and the jury was instructed that attorneys’ statements were not evidence]; People v. Jasso (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1372 [prosecutor’s error was harmless where there was strong evidence of guilt].) Although we expect greater care in the preparation of closing arguments, reversal is not warranted because the prosecutor’s error here was harmless under either the Chapman or Watson standard.4 4 Having addressed the prosecutorial misconduct claim on its

2021Prosecutorial misconduct A prosecutor’s use of deceptive or reprehensible methods to persuade the jury is misconduct and requires reversal when it infects the trial with such “‘unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.’” (People v. Friend (2009) 47 Cal.4th 1, 29 ; People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 1000 .) When a misconduct claim is based on the prosecutor’s comments before the jury, ‘“the question is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury construed or applied any of the complained-of remarks in an objectionable fashion.’” (People v. Frien

2025In any event, Peterson’s claims of prosecutorial misconduct fail on the merits. “ ‘A prosecutor’s conduct violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution when it infects the trial with such unfairness as to make the conviction a denial of due process.’ ” (Choyce, supra, 18 Cal.5th at p. 114, 11 In any event, as noted, the court dismissed the great bodily injury enhancement at the time of sentencing. 36 quoting People v. Morales (2001) 25 Cal.4th 34, 44 .) “In other words, the misconduct or error must be ‘of sufficient significance to result in the denial of the defendant’s right

2025“A prosecutor’s conduct violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution when it infects the trial with such unfairness as to make the conviction a denial of due process.” (People v. Morales (2001) 25 Cal.4th 34, 44 .) In other words, the misconduct or error must be “of sufficient significance to result in the denial of the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” (People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1202 , quoting United States v. Agurs (1976) 427 U.S. 97, 108 .) The standard for reversal on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct is lower under state law; even if the misconduct is not

2021A. Standard of Review “Under the federal Constitution, a prosecutor commits reversible misconduct only if the conduct infects the trial with such ‘ “unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” ’ [Citation.] By contrast, our state law requires reversal when a prosecutor uses ‘deceptive or reprehensible methods to persuade either the court or the 15 jury’ [citation] and ‘ “it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the defendant would have been reached without the misconduct” ’ [citation].” (People v. Davis (2009) 46 Cal.4th 539, 612 .) “To preserve a

2017To preserve a misconduct claim for review on appeal, “ ‘a defendant must make a timely and specific objection and ask the trial court to admonish the jury to disregard the improper argument.’ ” (People v. Linton (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1146, 1205 [ 158 Cal.Rptr.3d 521 , 302 P.3d 927 ]; see People v. Thomas (2012) 54 Cal.4th 908, 937 [ 144 Cal.Rptr.3d 366 , 281 P.3d 361 ].) The underlying purpose of this requirement is to “ ‘ “encourage a defendant to bring errors to the attention of the trial court, so that they may be corrected or avoided and a fair trial had (People v. Saunders (1993) 5 Cal.4th 58

2024Proc., § 2018.010 et seq.; § 1054 et seq.) A prosecutor’s conduct violates the federal Constitution when it “ ‘so infect[s] the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.’ ” (Darden v. Wainwright (1986) 477 U.S. 168, 181 (Darden).) “Conduct that does not render a trial fundamentally unfair is error under state law only when it involves ‘ “ ‘the use of deceptive or reprehensible methods to attempt to persuade either the court or the jury.’ ” ’ ” (Bennett, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 595 ; see People v. Friend (2009) 47 Cal.4th 1, 29 (Friend).) When a miscondu

2024Proc., § 2018.010 et seq.; § 1054 et seq.) A prosecutor’s conduct violates the federal Constitution when it “ ‘so infect[s] the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.’ ” (Darden v. Wainwright (1986) 477 U.S. 168, 181 (Darden).) “Conduct that does not render a trial fundamentally unfair is error under state law only when it involves ‘ “ ‘the use of deceptive or reprehensible methods to attempt to persuade either the court or the jury.’ ” ’ ” (Bennett, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 595 ; see People v. Friend (2009) 47 Cal.4th 1, 29 (Friend).) When a miscondu

2025(People v. Cortez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 101, 133 [rejecting a misconduct claim challenging prosecutor’s comments on reasonable doubt because, in part, the court properly defined reasonable doubt, and jury had written instructions during deliberations].) The prosecutor also stated during summation that he had a high burden of proof which was the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

2024(See People v. Cortez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 101, 133 [rejecting a misconduct claim challenging prosecutor’s 17 comments on reasonable doubt based on, among other factors, the fact that the court properly defined reasonable doubt and the jury had written instructions during deliberations].) “The jury is presumed to have followed the trial court’s instructions in the absence of any indication it was unwilling or unable to do so.” (People v. Letner and Tobin (2010) 50 Cal.4th 99, 196 .) In People v. Centeno (2014) 60 Cal.4th 659 (Centeno), on which defendant principally relies, one of the problems wi

2016(People v. Hinton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 839, 863 ; People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 858 .) Absent a fundamentally unfair trial under the federal Constitution, prosecutorial misconduct or error does not require reversal of the judgment unless it was prejudicial under state law, i.e., it is reasonably probable the defendant would have obtained a more favorable verdict absent the misconduct or error.

2016(People v. Hinton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 839, 863 ; People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 858 .) 28 Absent a fundamentally unfair trial under the federal Constitution, prosecutorial misconduct or error does not require reversal of the judgment unless it was prejudicial under state law, i.e., it is reasonably probable the defendant would have obtained a more favorable verdict absent the misconduct or error.

2025“To preserve a misconduct claim for review on appeal, a defendant must make a timely objection.” (People v. Davis (2009) 46 Cal.4th 539, 612 ; see People v. Gamache (2010) 48 Cal.4th 347, 370-371 .) Here, though defense counsel referred to possible violations of the ICAC standards at various points, he did not argue the sheriff’s department engaged in outrageous conduct and does not appear to have moved to dismiss on that ground.

2022Forfeiture Defendant argues “the prosecutor interfered with [his] right to counsel by intentionally obtaining privileged and confidential information from the [CCD].” This prosecutorial misconduct, defendant argues, is also “governmental behavior that ‘shocks the conscience’ [and] violates [his] due process rights,” requiring reversal of his convictions. 43 Generally, “[t]o preserve a misconduct claim for review on appeal, a defendant must make a timely objection.” (People v. Davis (2009) 46 Cal.4th 539, 612 ; People v. Gamache (2010) 48 Cal.4th 347, 370-371 .) Defense counsel complained that

2023(Castillo, at pp. 386–387; People v. Bordelon (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1311 , 1323–1324.) D We conclude that Michael and Matthew waived or forfeited their claim of prosecutorial misconduct regarding the prosecutor’s display during his opening statement of a slide bearing the words “felons in possession” adjacent to their photographs because they did not timely object to that display and request a curative admonition.

2016(Castillo, at pp. 386-387, fn. 9; People v. Bordelon (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1311, 1323-1324 .) B The trial court instructed the jury on first and second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter based on a theory of heat of passion.

2025To preserve a misconduct claim for review on appeal, a defendant must make a timely objection and, unless an admonition would not have cured the harm, ask the trial court to admonish the jury to disregard the prosecutor’s improper remarks or conduct. [Citation.]” (People v. Martinez (2010) 47 Cal.4th 911, 955-956 .) A finding of prosecutorial misconduct requires “‘a reasonable likelihood that the jury construed or applied any of the complained-of remarks in an objectionable fashion.’” (People v. Carter (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1215, 1263 .) A prosecutor is given wide latitude during closing argument.

2020“To preserve a misconduct claim for review on appeal, a defendant must make a timely objection and, unless an admonition would not have cured the harm, ask the trial court to admonish the jury to disregard the prosecutor’s improper remarks or conduct. [Citation.]” (People v. Martinez, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 956 .) In People v. Peoples (2016) 62 Cal.4th 718 at page 801, our Supreme Court concluded the defendant did not forfeit a prosecutor misconduct claim despite his failure to contemporaneously object to the statements.

2021And we don’t do that.” “ ‘ “To preserve a misconduct claim for review on appeal, a defendant must make a timely objection and ask the trial court to admonish the jury to disregard the prosecutor’s improper remarks or conduct, unless an admonition would not have cured the harm.” ’ ” (People v. Sattiewhite (2014) 59 Cal.4th 446, 480 .) Although Dworak made timely objections to two of the statements at issue, he did not request an admonition of the jury.

2021Governing Legal Principles “ ‘ “To preserve a misconduct claim for review on appeal, a defendant must make a timely objection and ask the trial court to admonish the jury to disregard the prosecutor’s improper remarks or conduct, unless an admonition would not have cured the harm” ’ ” (People v. Sattiewhite (2014) 36 59 Cal.4th 446, 480 (Sattiewhite)), or an objection would have been futile (People v. Centeno (2014) 60 Cal.4th 659, 674 ). “ ‘ “Under the federal Constitution, a prosecutor commits reversible misconduct only if the conduct infects the trial with such ‘ “unfairness as to make the

2024A similar misconduct claim was raised in Collins when a juror drew a scale diagram for himself based on expert ballistics testimony. ( Collins, supra, 49 Cal.4th at pp. 237, 253.) Although he did not bring the diagram itself into the jury room, he used it in deliberations to conduct a demonstration of how he believed the shooting had occurred.

2024A similar misconduct claim was raised in Collins when a juror drew a scale diagram for himself based on expert ballistics testimony. ( Collins, supra, 49 Cal.4th at pp. 237, 253.) Although he did not bring the diagram itself into the jury room, he used it in deliberations to conduct a demonstration of how he believed the shooting had occurred.

2025In any event, Peterson’s claims of prosecutorial misconduct fail on the merits. “ ‘A prosecutor’s conduct violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution when it infects the trial with such unfairness as to make the conviction a denial of due process.’ ” (Choyce, supra, 18 Cal.5th at p. 114, 11 In any event, as noted, the court dismissed the great bodily injury enhancement at the time of sentencing. 36 quoting People v. Morales (2001) 25 Cal.4th 34, 44 .) “In other words, the misconduct or error must be ‘of sufficient significance to result in the denial of the defendant’s right

2025“A prosecutor’s conduct violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution when it infects the trial with such unfairness as to make the conviction a denial of due process.” (People v. Morales (2001) 25 Cal.4th 34, 44 .) In other words, the misconduct or error must be “of sufficient significance to result in the denial of the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” (People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1202 , quoting United States v. Agurs (1976) 427 U.S. 97, 108 .) The standard for reversal on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct is lower under state law; even if the misconduct is not

2025(People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 841 .) Here, the prosecutor’s comments during his closing argument were reasonable inferences based on the evidence presented.

2017“As a general rule a defendant may not complain on appeal of prosecutorial misconduct unless in a timely fashion – and on the same ground – the defendant made an assignment of misconduct and requested that the jury be admonished to disregard the impropriety. [Citation.]” (People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 841 .) The failure to object and request an admonition “waives a misconduct claim on appeal unless an objection would have been futile or an admonition ineffective. [Citations.]” (People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 160 ; People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 820 .) In any event, the

2025(People v. Dennis (1998) 17 Cal.4th 468, 522 .) When a misconduct claim focuses on comments the prosecutor made before the jury, the question is whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury construed or applied any of the comments in an objectionable fashion.

2024(People v. Wallace (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1032, 1070 .) “Under the federal Constitution, a prosecutor commits reversible misconduct only if the conduct infects the trial with such ‘“unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.”’ [Citation.] By contrast, our state law requires reversal when a prosecutor uses ‘deceptive or reprehensible methods to persuade either the court or the jury’ 18 [citation] and ‘“it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the defendant would have been reached without the misconduct”’ [citation].” (People v. Davis (2009) 46 Cal.4th 53

2024Whether the particular misconduct is a bar to the alleged claim for relief depends on (1) analogous case law, (2) the nature of the misconduct, and (3) the relationship of the misconduct to the claimed injuries.’” (Jay Bharat Developers, Inc. v. Minidis (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 437 , 446– 447, citing Kendall-Jackson, supra, 76 Cal.App.4th at p. 979 . 2.

2014Whether the particular misconduct is a bar to the alleged claim for relief depends on (1) analogous case law, (2) the nature of the 58 misconduct, and (3) the relationship of the misconduct to the claimed injuries. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Jay Bharat Developers, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at pp. 445-446.) Denholm sought to avoid liability for his own wrongdoing (breach of fiduciary duty to the Trust) on the grounds the Holts had unclean hands and contributed to the losses suffered by the Trust in the CABOCO deal.

2023(People v. Tafoya [(2007)] 42 Cal.4th 147, 176 .)” (People v. Davis, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 612 .) 3.

2010(People v. Tafoya (2007) 42 Cal.4th 147, 176 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 163 , 164 P.3d 590 ].) 2.