claim of prosecutorial error in California

2021(See, e.g., In re Martin (1987) 44 Cal.3d 1, 30 [Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process violated when government substantially interferes with exercise of an accused’s right to present witnesses].) “To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial violation of the right to compulsory process, a defendant must establish three elements.” (People v. Jacinto (2010) 49 Cal.4th 263, 269 (Jacinto); accord, In re Martin, supra, 44 Cal.3d at pp. 30-32.) First, the defendant must show the prosecutor engaged in conduct that was “ ‘ “ ‘entirely unnecessary to the proper performance of the prosecutor’s duties a

2021(See, e.g., In re Martin (1987) 44 Cal.3d 1, 30 [Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process violated when government substantially interferes with exercise of an accused’s right to present witnesses].) “To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial violation of the right to compulsory process, a defendant must establish three elements.” (People v. Jacinto (2010) 49 Cal.4th 263, 269 (Jacinto); accord, In re Martin, supra, 44 Cal.3d at pp. 30-32.) First, the defendant must show the prosecutor engaged in conduct that was “ ‘ “ ‘entirely unnecessary to the proper performance of the prosecutor’s duties a

2025Chandra uses the term “misconduct” which “ ‘is somewhat of a misnomer to the extent that it suggests a prosecutor must act with a culpable state of mind.’ ” (People v. Centeno (2014) 60 Cal.4th 659 , 666–667 (Centeno).) To preserve a claim of prosecutorial error for appeal, “ ‘a criminal defendant must make a timely and specific objection and ask the trial court to admonish the jury to disregard the impropriety.’ ” (People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 960 .) “The failure to timely object and request an admonition will be excused if doing either would have been futile, or if an admonition wo

2025Chandra uses the term “misconduct” which “ ‘is somewhat of a misnomer to the extent that it suggests a prosecutor must act with a culpable state of mind.’ ” (People v. Centeno (2014) 60 Cal.4th 659 , 666–667 (Centeno).) To preserve a claim of prosecutorial error for appeal, “ ‘a criminal defendant must make a timely and specific objection and ask the trial court to admonish the jury to disregard the impropriety.’ ” (People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 960 .) “The failure to timely object and request an admonition will be excused if doing either would have been futile, or if an admonition wo

2021(See, e.g., In re Martin (1987) 44 Cal.3d 1, 30 [Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process violated when government substantially interferes with exercise of an accused’s right to present witnesses].) “To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial violation of the right to compulsory process, a defendant must establish three elements.” (People v. Jacinto (2010) 49 Cal.4th 263, 269 (Jacinto); accord, In re Martin, supra, 44 Cal.3d at pp. 30-32.) First, the defendant must show the prosecutor engaged in conduct that was “ ‘ “ ‘entirely unnecessary to the proper performance of the prosecutor’s duties a

2016(In re Martin (1987) 44 Cal.3d 1, 30 (Martin).) "A criminal defendant's rights under the compulsory process clause can be infringed in several ways. 'They include, for example, statements to defense witnesses to the effect that they would be prosecuted for any crimes they reveal or commit in the 29 course of their testimony. [Citations.] They also include statements to defense witnesses warning they would suffer untoward consequences in other cases if they were to testify on behalf of the defense. [Citations.] Finally, they include arresting a defense witness before he or other defense witness

2025Analysis Prosecutorial error under state law is established “when a prosecutor ‘engage[s] in deceptive or reprehensible tactics in order to persuade the trier of fact to convict.’ [Citation.] Federal constitutional error occurs only when the prosecutor’s actions ‘comprise a pattern of conduct that is serious and egregious, such that the trial is rendered so unfair that the resulting conviction violates the defendant’s right to due process of law.’ ” (People v. Daveggio and Michaud (2018) 4 Cal.5th 790, 854 .) Where, as here, a claim of prosecutorial error “ ‘focuses upon comments made by the p

2021Prosecutorial “error occurs, as a matter of state law, when a prosecutor ‘engage[s] in deceptive or reprehensible tactics in order to persuade the trier 10 of fact to convict.’ [Citation.] Federal constitutional error occurs only when the prosecutor’s actions ‘comprise a pattern of conduct that is serious and egregious, such that the trial is rendered so unfair that the resulting conviction violates the defendant’s right to due process of law.’ ” (People v. Daveggio and Michaud (2018) 4 Cal.5th 790, 854 .) When a claim of prosecutorial error “ ‘focuses upon comments made by the prosecutor befo

2016To preserve a claim of prosecutorial error or misconduct for appeal, “a defendant must make a timely and specific objection to the alleged misconduct and request the jury be admonished to disregard it.” (People v. Seumanu (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1293, 1339 .) Scroggins satisfied that requirement here as to his contention that the prosecutor misstated the law.

2016To preserve a claim of prosecutorial error or misconduct for appeal, “a defendant must make a timely and specific objection to the alleged misconduct and request the jury be admonished to disregard it.” (People v. Seumanu (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1293, 1339 .) Here, defendant’s trial attorney did not object or request that the jury be admonished.

2013Governing Law and Analysis " 'A defendant's constitutional rights to compel the attendance of witnesses, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, and to due process, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, are violated when the prosecution interferes with the defendant's right to present witnesses.' [Citations.]" (People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 456 .) "To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial violation of the right to compulsory process, a defendant must establish three elements. ' "First, he [or she] must demonstrate prosecutorial misconduct, i.e., conduct that was 'entirely unnecessary

2010To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial violation of the right to compulsory process, a defendant must establish three elements. “ ‘First, he must demonstrate prosecutorial misconduct, i.e., conduct that was “entirely unnecessary to the proper performance of the prosecutor’s duties and was of such a nature as to transform a defense witness willing to testify into one unwilling to testify.” ’ (In re Williams (1994) 7 Cal.4th 572, 603 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 64 , 870 P.2d 1072 ].) Second, he must establish the prosecutor’s misconduct was a substantial cause in depriving the defendant of the witness’s te

2025Analysis Prosecutorial error under state law is established “when a prosecutor ‘engage[s] in deceptive or reprehensible tactics in order to persuade the trier of fact to convict.’ [Citation.] Federal constitutional error occurs only when the prosecutor’s actions ‘comprise a pattern of conduct that is serious and egregious, such that the trial is rendered so unfair that the resulting conviction violates the defendant’s right to due process of law.’ ” (People v. Daveggio and Michaud (2018) 4 Cal.5th 790, 854 .) Where, as here, a claim of prosecutorial error “ ‘focuses upon comments made by the p

2020(People v. Bolton (1979) 23 Cal.3d 208 , 213–214; see People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 823, fn. 1 .) We review a trial court’s denial of a claim of prosecutorial error or misconduct under the deferential abuse of discretion standard.

2021General legal standards Prosecutorial “error occurs, as a matter of state law, when a prosecutor ‘engage[s] in deceptive or reprehensible tactics in order to persuade the trier of fact to convict.’ [Citation.] Federal constitutional error occurs only when the prosecutor’s actions ‘comprise a pattern of conduct that is serious and egregious, such that the trial is rendered so unfair that the resulting conviction violates the defendant’s right to due process of law.’ ” (People v. Daveggio and Michaud (2018) 4 Cal.5th 790, 854 .) When a claim of prosecutorial error “ ‘focuses upon comments made b

2020General legal standards Prosecutorial “error occurs, as a matter of state law, when a prosecutor ‘engage[s] in deceptive or reprehensible tactics in order to persuade the trier of fact to convict.’ [Citation.] Federal constitutional error occurs only when 19 the prosecutor’s actions ‘comprise a pattern of conduct that is serious and egregious, such that the trial is rendered so unfair that the resulting conviction violates the defendant’s right to due process of law.’ ” (People v. Daveggio and Michaud (2018) 4 Cal.5th 790, 854 .) When a claim of prosecutorial error “ ‘focuses upon comments mad

2016(In re Williams (1994) 7 Cal.4th 572, 603 .) First, the defendant must show the prosecutor's conduct was "entirely unnecessary to the proper performance of the prosecutor's duties and was of such a nature as to transform a defense witness willing to testify into one unwilling to testify." (People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 460 (Mincey); In re Williams, at p. 603; People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 825A, 457 (Lucas).

2016(In re Williams (1994) 7 Cal.4th 572, 603 .) First, the defendant must show the prosecutor's conduct was "entirely unnecessary to the proper performance of the prosecutor's duties and was of such a nature as to transform a defense witness willing to testify into one unwilling to testify." (People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 460 (Mincey); In re Williams, at p. 603; People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 825A, 457 (Lucas).

2021(People v. Hoyt, supra, 8 Cal.5th at p. 944 [failure to assert a further objection after the trial court’s clarification to the jury, forfeited appellate review of the claim of prosecutorial error]; see also generally People v. Potts (2019) 6 Cal.5th 1012, 1035 [declining to find an exception to the ordinary forfeiture rules for assertions of prosecutorial error directed at alleged misstatements of law].)28 28 To the extent that Dorton has premised his appellate argument on the contents of the slide (as opposed to the prosecutor’s own statements), we further note that Dorton failed to make a r

2021General legal standards Prosecutorial “error occurs, as a matter of state law, when a prosecutor ‘engage[s] in deceptive or reprehensible tactics in order to persuade the trier of fact to convict.’ [Citation.] Federal constitutional error occurs only when the prosecutor’s actions ‘comprise a pattern of conduct that is serious and egregious, such that the trial is rendered so unfair that the resulting conviction violates the defendant’s right to due process of law.’ ” (People v. Daveggio and Michaud (2018) 4 Cal.5th 790, 854 .) When a claim of prosecutorial error “ ‘focuses upon comments made b

2010To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial violation of the right to compulsory process, a defendant must establish three elements. “ ‘First, he must demonstrate prosecutorial misconduct, i.e., conduct that was “entirely unnecessary to the proper performance of the prosecutor’s duties and was of such a nature as to transform a defense witness willing to testify into one unwilling to testify.” ’ (In re Williams (1994) 7 Cal.4th 572, 603 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 64 , 870 P.2d 1072 ].) Second, he must establish the prosecutor’s misconduct was a substantial cause in depriving the defendant of the witness’s te

2010To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial violation of the right to compulsory process, a defendant must establish three elements. “ ‘First, he must demonstrate prosecutorial misconduct, i.e., conduct that was “entirely unnecessary to the proper performance of the prosecutor’s duties and was of such a nature as to transform a defense witness willing to testify into one unwilling to testify.” ’ (In re Williams (1994) 7 Cal.4th 572, 603 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 64 , 870 P.2d 1072 ].) Second, he must establish the prosecutor’s misconduct was a substantial cause in depriving the defendant of the witness’s te

2026(Ibid.; People v. Shazier (2014) 60 Cal.4th 109, 127 .) Prosecutorial error involving comments by prosecutors to jurors has generally been viewed by California courts as error of less than constitutional magnitude (see People v. Bolton (1979) 23 Cal.3d 208, 214, fn. 4 ), warranting “reversal only if it is reasonably probable the trial outcome was affected.” (Shazier, at p. 127.) “[A] prosecutor is allowed to vigorously argue the case and is afforded ‘significant leeway’ in discussing the facts and the law in closing argument. [Citations.]” (Azcona, supra, 58 Cal.App.5th at p. 516.) To prevail

2020(People v. Bolton (1979) 23 Cal.3d 208 , 213–214; see People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 823, fn. 1 .) We review a trial court’s denial of a claim of prosecutorial error or misconduct under the deferential abuse of discretion standard.

2024(People v. Uribe (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 836, 860 .) In conducting this review, we determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury would have understood or applied the prosecutor’s remarks in an improper or erroneous manner.

2021DISCUSSION A. The prosecutor’s closing argument and the trial court’s jury instructions did not erroneously allow the jury to find Smith guilty of the Yum Yum Yo robbery merely upon a finding that the defendants were guilty of petty theft Smith contends, “The prosecutor’s closing argument, coupled with an ambiguity in [the] trial court’s instructions, erroneously and prejudicially allowed the jury to find appellant guilty of robbery on count two [the Yum Yum Yo robbery] if the jury found both defendants were guilty of the target offense of petty theft, a legally invalid theory in this case.” (

2021The choice of when to object is inherently a matter of trial tactics not ordinarily reviewable on appeal.” (People v. Frierson (1991) 53 Cal.3d 730, 749 .) Rather, as we have said, reversal on direct appeal for ineffective assistance of counsel is warranted only if “(1) the record affirmatively discloses counsel had no rational tactical purpose for the challenged act or omission, (2) counsel was asked for a reason and failed to provide one, or (3) there simply could be no satisfactory explanation.” (Mai, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 1009 .) 2.

2020General legal standards Prosecutorial “error occurs, as a matter of state law, when a prosecutor ‘engage[s] in deceptive or reprehensible tactics in order to persuade the trier of fact to convict.’ [Citation.] Federal constitutional error occurs only when 19 the prosecutor’s actions ‘comprise a pattern of conduct that is serious and egregious, such that the trial is rendered so unfair that the resulting conviction violates the defendant’s right to due process of law.’ ” (People v. Daveggio and Michaud (2018) 4 Cal.5th 790, 854 .) When a claim of prosecutorial error “ ‘focuses upon comments mad

2025Analysis Prosecutorial error under state law is established “when a prosecutor ‘engage[s] in deceptive or reprehensible tactics in order to persuade the trier of fact to convict.’ [Citation.] Federal constitutional error occurs only when the prosecutor’s actions ‘comprise a pattern of conduct that is serious and egregious, such that the trial is rendered so unfair that the resulting conviction violates the defendant’s right to due process of law.’ ” (People v. Daveggio and Michaud (2018) 4 Cal.5th 790, 854 .) Where, as here, a claim of prosecutorial error “ ‘focuses upon comments made by the p

2025Analysis Prosecutorial error under state law is established “when a prosecutor ‘engage[s] in deceptive or reprehensible tactics in order to persuade the trier of fact to convict.’ [Citation.] Federal constitutional error occurs only when the prosecutor’s actions ‘comprise a pattern of conduct that is serious and egregious, such that the trial is rendered so unfair that the resulting conviction violates the defendant’s right to due process of law.’ ” (People v. Daveggio and Michaud (2018) 4 Cal.5th 790, 854 .) Where, as here, a claim of prosecutorial error “ ‘focuses upon comments made by the p