prosecutorial error in California

2026A more apt description of the transgression is prosecutorial error.” (People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 823, fn. 1 .) Prosecutorial error “occurs, as a matter of state law, when a prosecutor ‘engages 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

2016(People v. Hinton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 839, 863 .) 10 Although the standard for prosecutorial error under state law—" ' " 'the use of deceptive or reprehensible methods' " ' "—suggests that a prosecutor must act in bad faith, in People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 822-823 (Hill), the Supreme Court made it clear that bad faith on the part of the prosecutor is not required for a successful claim of prosecutorial error.

2026Relevant law 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.’ ” (People v. Daveggio and Michaud (2018) 4 Cal.5th 790, 854 (Daveggio).) “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.’ ” (Ibid.) A prosecutor is given wide latitude during closing argument.

2026A more apt description of the transgression is prosecutorial error.” (People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 823, fn. 1 .) Prosecutorial error “occurs, as a matter of state law, when a prosecutor ‘engages 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

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

2025(Ibid.; People v. Shazier (2014) 60 Cal.4th 109, 127 (Shazier).) 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.” 4Although appellant labels the alleged error as “misconduct,” “‘[t]he term prosecutorial “misconduct” is somewhat of a misnomer to the extent that it suggests a prosecutor must act with a culpable state of mind.

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

2025(Ibid.; People v. Shazier (2014) 60 Cal.4th 109, 127 (Shazier).) 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.” 4Although appellant labels the alleged error as “misconduct,” “‘[t]he term prosecutorial “misconduct” is somewhat of a misnomer to the extent that it suggests a prosecutor must act with a culpable state of mind.

2026(Hill, at p. 819.) “In order to be entitled to relief under state law, defendant must show that the challenged conduct raised a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable verdict.” (People v. Blacksher (2011) 52 Cal.4th 769, 828, fn. 35 .) “Under federal law, relief is not available if ‘the challenged conduct was . . . harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (Daveggio, supra, 4 Cal.5th at p. 854 .) A defendant generally may not complain on appeal of prosecutorial error unless he or she timely and specifically objected to that purported prosecutorial error and requested that the trial court admon

2024Prosecutorial 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.” (People v. Lightsey (2012) 54 Cal.4th 668, 718 .) “In order to be entitled to relief under state law, defendant must show that the challenged conduct raised a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable verdict.” (People v. Blacksher (2011) 52 Cal.4th 769, 828, fn. 35 .) Federal constitutional prosecutorial error occurs only when the prosecutor’s actions “comprise a pattern of conduct that is serious and egregious, such that th

2025(See People v. Peoples (2016) 62 Cal.4th 718, 801 [reason for the forfeiture rule is that the trial court should be given the opportunity to correct the misconduct of counsel and thus, if possible, prevent the harmful effect on the minds of the jurors].) We decline to exercise our discretion to excuse Romero’s failure to object because as we set forth below, he has failed to show prejudice from the prosecutor’s statements.

2025(See People v. Peoples (2016) 62 Cal.4th 718, 801 [reason for the forfeiture rule is that the trial court should be given the opportunity to correct the misconduct of counsel and thus, if possible, prevent the harmful effect on the minds of the jurors].) We decline to exercise our discretion to excuse Jimenez’s failure to object because as we set forth below, he has failed to show prejudice from the prosecutor’s arguments.

2025Nonetheless, regardless of whether the prosecutor’s actions are characterized as prosecutorial misconduct or a violation of the advocate- witness rule, the record does not reveal any prejudice to defendants. 6 Prosecutorial error is evaluated under the Chapman standard of prejudice when a prosecutor’s behavior “ ‘ “is sufficiently egregious that it infects the trial with such a degree of unfairness as to render the subsequent conviction a denial of due process, [such that] the federal Constitution is violated.” ’ ” (People v. Shazier (2014) 60 Cal.4th 109, 127 .) Under that standard, “the [app

2016If the error is a violation of federal constitutional principles, we apply the Chapman standard (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 ), wherein “the [appellate] court must be able to declare a belief that [the error] was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (See People v. Vargas (1973) 9 Cal.3d 470, 478 [prosecutorial error by commenting on defendant’s refusal to testify in violation of Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609 , reviewed under Chapman standard].) Prosecutorial error is evaluated under the Chapman standard when “ ‘ “a prosecutor’s intemperate behavior is sufficiently

2022(People v. Bell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 70, 125 [deficient performance is a prerequisite to proving an ineffective assistance claim].) The prosecutorial error claim fails.

2022(People v. Bell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 70, 125 [deficient performance is a prerequisite to proving an ineffective assistance claim].) The prosecutorial error claim fails.

2021Prosecutorial error “[I]t is improper for [a] prosecutor to misstate the law.” (People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal.4th 799, 831 (Marshall).) “A defendant asserting prosecutorial misconduct must further establish a reasonable likelihood the jury construed the remarks in an objectionable fashion.” (People v. Duff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 527, 568 (Duff).) 11 c.

2021Prosecutorial error “The use of deceptive or reprehensible methods to persuade the jury constitutes [prosecutorial] misconduct.” (People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 411, 475 .) In addition, “it is improper for [a] prosecutor to misstate the law.” (People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal.4th 799, 831 (Marshall).) “A defendant asserting prosecutorial misconduct must further establish a reasonable likelihood the jury construed the remarks in an objectionable fashion.” (People v. Duff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 527, 568 (Duff).) 3.

2021Prosecutorial error “[I]t is improper for [a] prosecutor to misstate the law.” (People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal.4th 799, 831 (Marshall).) “A defendant asserting prosecutorial misconduct must further establish a reasonable likelihood the jury construed the remarks in an objectionable fashion.” (People v. Duff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 527, 568 (Duff).) 11 c.

2021Prosecutorial error “The use of deceptive or reprehensible methods to persuade the jury constitutes [prosecutorial] misconduct.” (People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 411, 475 .) In addition, “it is improper for [a] prosecutor to misstate the law.” (People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal.4th 799, 831 (Marshall).) “A defendant asserting prosecutorial misconduct must further establish a reasonable likelihood the jury construed the remarks in an objectionable fashion.” (People v. Duff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 527, 568 (Duff).) 3.

2004The district attorney and his employees prevailed under the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity and, accordingly, Pitts was concerned only with the liability of the county. ( Pitts, supra, 17 Cal.4th at pp. 345-347, 352, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 823 , 949 P.2d 920 .) The plaintiffs' action against the county alleged that its district attorney had established a pattern or practice of procuring false statements and testimony by threats, promises, and intimidation, and also failed to provide adequate training procedures and regulations to prevent such conduct. ( Pitts, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 352 , 70 Cal.R

2004The district attorney and his employees prevailed under the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity and, accordingly, Pitts was concerned only with the liability of the county. ( Pitts, supra, 17 Cal.4th at pp. 345-347, 352, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 823 , 949 P.2d 920 .) The plaintiffs' action against the county alleged that its district attorney had established a pattern or practice of procuring false statements and testimony by threats, promises, and intimidation, and also failed to provide adequate training procedures and regulations to prevent such conduct. ( Pitts, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 352 , 70 Cal.R

2026(See Centeno, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 667 .) Because we reach the merits and conclude there was no prosecutorial error, we need not address forfeiture, whether Samaniego’s counsel was ineffective by not objecting, or whether the purported prosecutorial error was prejudicial.

2022To successfully demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, appellant “bears the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) counsel’s performance was deficient because it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms, and (2) counsel’s deficiencies resulted in prejudice.” (Centeno, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 674 .) Because his ineffective assistance of counsel claim is predicated on the failure to object to the prosecutorial error, we first address whether the prosecutor committed error.

2024(People v. Seumanu (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1293, 1328 (Seumanu); People v. Gonzales (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1234, 1275 (Gonzales) [claim of prosecutorial error forfeited where objection was made and sustained, but no admonition was requested].) “ ‘The primary purpose of the requirement that a defendant object at trial to argument constituting prosecutorial [error] is to give the trial court an opportunity, through admonition of the jury, to correct any error and mitigate any prejudice.’ ” (Seumanu, at p. 1328.) Consistent with that purpose, “[a] court will excuse a defendant’s failure to object only if an

2024If you don’t believe me, ask for [a] read back of the testimony because I am right about that.” 22 Even assuming, for the sake of argument, the prosecutor’s argument rose to the level of prosecutorial error, we do not find it to be prejudicial. “‘When a claim of misconduct 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. Gonzales, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 1275 .) We do not find that standard is met here.

2026(People v. Jablonski (2006) 37 Cal.4th 774, 835 (Jablonski).) The federal Constitution is violated when the prosecutorial error infects the trial with such a degree of unfairness as to render defendant’s conviction a denial of due process.

2025(People v. Jablonski (2006) 37 Cal.4th 774, 835 .) The federal Constitution is violated when the prosecutorial error infects the trial with such a degree of unfairness as to render defendant’s conviction a denial of due process.

2025Nonetheless, regardless of whether the prosecutor’s actions are characterized as prosecutorial misconduct or a violation of the advocate- witness rule, the record does not reveal any prejudice to defendants. 6 Prosecutorial error is evaluated under the Chapman standard of prejudice when a prosecutor’s behavior “ ‘ “is sufficiently egregious that it infects the trial with such a degree of unfairness as to render the subsequent conviction a denial of due process, [such that] the federal Constitution is violated.” ’ ” (People v. Shazier (2014) 60 Cal.4th 109, 127 .) Under that standard, “the [app

2016If the error is a violation of federal constitutional principles, we apply the Chapman standard (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 ), wherein “the [appellate] court must be able to declare a belief that [the error] was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (See People v. Vargas (1973) 9 Cal.3d 470, 478 [prosecutorial error by commenting on defendant’s refusal to testify in violation of Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609 , reviewed under Chapman standard].) Prosecutorial error is evaluated under the Chapman standard when “ ‘ “a prosecutor’s intemperate behavior is sufficiently

2021“If the challenged comments, viewed in context, ‘would have been taken by a juror to state or imply nothing harmful, [then] they obviously cannot be deemed objectionable.’ ” (Cortez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 130 .) A prosecutor’s conduct violates the United States Constitution when the conduct “ ‘infects the trial with such unfairness as to make the conviction a denial of due process’ ”; that is, when the conduct is “ ‘of sufficient significance to result in the denial of the defendant’s right to a fair trial.’ ” (People v. Harrison (2005) 35 Cal.4th 208, 242 .) A prosecutorial error that does

2016The argument may be vigorous as long as it amounts to fair comment on the evidence, which can include reasonable inferences, or deductions to be drawn therefrom. [Citations.] . . . ’ [Citation.] ‘A prosecutor may “vigorously argue his case and is not limited to ‘Chesterfieldian politeness’ ” [citation], and he [or she] may “use appropriate epithets warranted by the evidence.” ’ [Citations.]” (People v. Wharton (1991) 53 Cal.3d 522, 567-568 ; see also People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1203 .) But a prosecutor “ ‘may not assume or state facts not in evidence [citation] or mischaracterize th

2020(People v. Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d at p. 836 ; accord, Crew, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 839 ; People v. Barnett, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 1133 .) Reversal under the federal Constitution is necessary only when the conduct infects the trial with such unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.

2016If the error is a violation of federal constitutional principles, we apply the Chapman standard (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 ), wherein “the [appellate] court must be able to declare a belief that [the error] was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (See People v. Vargas (1973) 9 Cal.3d 470, 478 [prosecutorial error by commenting on defendant’s refusal to testify in violation of Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609 , reviewed under Chapman standard].) Prosecutorial error is evaluated under the Chapman standard when “ ‘ “a prosecutor’s intemperate behavior is sufficiently

1998Imbler accorded prosecutors absolute immunity under these circumstances out of "concern that fear of potential liability would undermine a prosecutor's performance of his duties by forcing him to consider his own potential *351 liability when making prosecutorial decisions and by diverting his `energy and attention ... from the pressing duty of enforcing the criminal law.'" ( Buckley v. Fitzsimmons (1993) 509 U.S. 259, 270, fn. 4 [ 113 S.Ct. 2606, 2614 , 125 L.Ed.2d 209 ], quoting Imbler v. Pachtman, supra, 424 U.S. at pp. 424-425 [96 S.Ct. at pp. 992-993].) "Suits against prosecutors would de

1998Imbler accorded prosecutors absolute immunity under these circumstances out of "concern that fear of potential liability would undermine a prosecutor's performance of his duties by forcing him to consider his own potential *351 liability when making prosecutorial decisions and by diverting his `energy and attention ... from the pressing duty of enforcing the criminal law.'" ( Buckley v. Fitzsimmons (1993) 509 U.S. 259, 270, fn. 4 [ 113 S.Ct. 2606, 2614 , 125 L.Ed.2d 209 ], quoting Imbler v. Pachtman, supra, 424 U.S. at pp. 424-425 [96 S.Ct. at pp. 992-993].) "Suits against prosecutors would de

2025Nonetheless, regardless of whether the prosecutor’s actions are characterized as prosecutorial misconduct or a violation of the advocate- witness rule, the record does not reveal any prejudice to defendants. 6 Prosecutorial error is evaluated under the Chapman standard of prejudice when a prosecutor’s behavior “ ‘ “is sufficiently egregious that it infects the trial with such a degree of unfairness as to render the subsequent conviction a denial of due process, [such that] the federal Constitution is violated.” ’ ” (People v. Shazier (2014) 60 Cal.4th 109, 127 .) Under that standard, “the [app

2025Nonetheless, regardless of whether the prosecutor’s actions are characterized as prosecutorial misconduct or a violation of the advocate- witness rule, the record does not reveal any prejudice to defendants. 6 Prosecutorial error is evaluated under the Chapman standard of prejudice when a prosecutor’s behavior “ ‘ “is sufficiently egregious that it infects the trial with such a degree of unfairness as to render the subsequent conviction a denial of due process, [such that] the federal Constitution is violated.” ’ ” (People v. Shazier (2014) 60 Cal.4th 109, 127 .) Under that standard, “the [app

2024Prosecutorial misconduct “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.]’” (People v. Doane (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 965 , 976; see also People v. Parson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 332, 359 [“Under state law, a prosecutor who uses such methods commits misconduct even when those actions do not result in a fundamentally unfair trial 22 [Citation.]”].) Reversible misconduct occurs if “it is reasonably probable that without such misconduct, an outcome more favorable to the

2024Prosecutorial misconduct “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.]’” (People v. Doane (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 965 , 976; see also People v. Parson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 332, 359 [“Under state law, a prosecutor who uses such methods commits misconduct even when those actions do not result in a fundamentally unfair trial 22 [Citation.]”].) Reversible misconduct occurs if “it is reasonably probable that without such misconduct, an outcome more favorable to the

2024Prosecutorial misconduct “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.]’” (People v. Doane (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 965 , 976; see also People v. Parson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 332, 359 [“Under state law, a prosecutor who uses such methods commits misconduct even when those actions do not result in a fundamentally unfair trial 22 [Citation.]”].) Reversible misconduct occurs if “it is reasonably probable that without such misconduct, an outcome more favorable to the

2024(People v. Seumanu (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1293, 1328 (Seumanu); People v. Gonzales (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1234, 1275 (Gonzales) [claim of prosecutorial error forfeited where objection was made and sustained, but no admonition was requested].) “ ‘The primary purpose of the requirement that a defendant object at trial to argument constituting prosecutorial [error] is to give the trial court an opportunity, through admonition of the jury, to correct any error and mitigate any prejudice.’ ” (Seumanu, at p. 1328.) Consistent with that purpose, “[a] court will excuse a defendant’s failure to object only if an