issue of prosecutorial error in California

2024(People v. Hinton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 839, 863 .) The failure to raise the issue of prosecutorial error at trial generally forfeits the right to appellate review of that issue.

2020(People v. Hinton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 839, 863 .) The failure to raise the issue of prosecutorial error at trial generally forfeits the right to appellate review of that issue.

2024(People v. Thomas (2011) 51 Cal.4th 449 , 491–492.) Although Mehlenbacher’s counsel failed to raise the issue of prosecutorial misconduct at trial, we may nonetheless reach the merits of his claim given his alternative argument that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel.

2020(People v. Thomas (2011) 51 Cal.4th 449, 491-492 .) Recognizing that defense counsel failed to object to the comments that he challenges on appeal, Geh raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

2016(People v. Hinton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 839, 863 ; People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 858 .) Because the record shows Gonzalez did not object to the challenged arguments by the prosecutor, he cannot raise on appeal the issue of prosecutorial error.

2016(People v. Hinton, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 863 ; People v. Earp, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 858 .) Because the record shows Tschida did not object to the challenged cross-examination questions and closing arguments by the prosecutor, he cannot raise on appeal the issue of prosecutorial error.

2024(See People v. Johnsen (2021) 10 Cal.5th 1116 , 1164–1165 (Johnsen) [timely and specific objection required to preserve these claims].) The record does not establish a timely objection and admonition would have been futile or insufficient.

2016(Strickland, at pp. 693-694; Ledesma, at pp. 217-218.) "When a defendant challenges a conviction, the question is whether there is a reasonable probability that, absent the [trial counsel's] errors, the factfinder would have had a reasonable doubt respecting guilt." (Strickland, at p. 695.) "A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." (People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 215 .) It is the defendant's burden on appeal to show that he or she was denied effective assistance of counsel and is entitled to relief.

2016(Strickland, at pp. 687, 691-692; People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171 , 216-217 4 Because we concluded above the trial court correctly instructed with CALCRIM No. 570 on voluntary manslaughter and Avila does not persuade us otherwise, we reject his assertion he can raise the issue of prosecutorial error, despite his counsel's failure to timely object or request curative admonitions, based on section 1259 or cases involving instructional error (e.g., People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 976-977, fn. 7 ). 17 (Ledesma); Pope, at p. 425.) To show prejudice, a defendant must show there is a

2015When an issue of prosecutorial error has been forfeited, an appellate court can reach the merits of the issue in order to reject it (People v. Williams, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 161, fn. 6 , citing People v. Berryman (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1048 , 1072-1076 and People v. Ashmus (1991) 54 Cal.3d 932, 975-976 ); however, we know of no authority permitting us not only to reach the merits but also to reverse on this ground. 16 We therefore consider only whether defense counsel’s failure to object to the asserted prosecutorial error constituted ineffective assistance.

2015While I agree that it was proper to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend, I do not agree with the majority’s broad brush approach to the issue of prosecutorial immunity and, in particular, its reliance on Alicia T. v. County of Los Angeles (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 869 [ 271 Cal.Rptr. 513 ] for the proposition that a prosecutor is immune from claims of false imprisonment.

2015While I agree that it was proper to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend, I do not agree with the majority’s broad brush approach to the issue of prosecutorial immunity and, in particular, its reliance on Alicia T. v. County of Los Angeles (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 869 [ 271 Cal.Rptr. 513 ] for the proposition that a prosecutor is immune from claims of false imprisonment.

2015When an issue of prosecutorial error has been forfeited, an appellate court can reach the merits of the issue in order to reject it (People v. Williams, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 161, fn. 6 , citing People v. Berryman (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1048 , 1072-1076 and People v. Ashmus (1991) 54 Cal.3d 932, 975-976 ); however, we know of no authority permitting us not only to reach the merits but also to reverse on this ground. 16 We therefore consider only whether defense counsel’s failure to object to the asserted prosecutorial error constituted ineffective assistance.

2006(People v. Valdez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 73, 122 [ 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 271 , 82 P.3d 296 ]; People v. Morales (2001) 25 Cal.4th 34 [ 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 582 , 18 P.3d 11 ]; see id. at p. 50 (cone. & dis. opn. of Kennard, J.).) We will deal with the issue of the prosecutor misstatement of the law again in the context of appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance.

2006(People v. Valdez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 73, 122 [ 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 271 , 82 P.3d 296 ]; People v. Morales (2001) 25 Cal.4th 34 [ 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 582 , 18 P.3d 11 ]; see id. at p. 50 (cone. & dis. opn. of Kennard, J.).) We will deal with the issue of the prosecutor misstatement of the law again in the context of appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance.