People v. Tyler

California Court of Appeal Sep 10, 1991 No. No. A049242Published

Before: Dossee

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that while the trial court's interruptions of defense counsel were not prejudicial, any potential error was waived by the defendant's failure to object at trial. The court further noted that attorneys are generally prohibited from expressing personal opinions regarding a defendant's guilt or innocence.

Issues

Whether the trial court's interruptions and comments regarding defense counsel's closing argument constituted reversible error.
Whether the rule prohibiting prosecutors from expressing personal opinions on a defendant's guilt applies equally to defense counsel.
Whether the defendant waived his claim of judicial misconduct by failing to object at trial.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“As we read the remarks, the trial court merely commented that defense counsel could not express his personal opinion about the case.”

“In any event, we conclude defendant waived any error by his failure to object.”

“A challenge to allegedly improper remarks by a trial judge will not be considered on appeal when a timely objection and admonition could have avoided any prejudice.”

Opinion

DOSSEE, J. Defendant was convicted in a jury trial of second degree robbery after he snatched a purse from a woman pedestrian on an Oakland street. In a trial by the court he was found to have two prior convictions. He was sentenced to prison for 13 years. On appeal, he makes two claims of error: (1) the trial court made improper comments to the jury and (2) the trial court improperly excluded an item of evidence.

[886]Facts*

Discussion

I. Trial Court’s Comments

At closing argument, the trial court twice interrupted defense counsel and remarked that defense counsel was not allowed to express his belief in his client’s innocence. At the outset, the court interjected as follows:

“Mr Pinkney [Defense Counsel]: Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen, [¶] We’re going to start off first with a question. The question to you is: [f] In our system, what can an innocent man without an alibi do? [¶] I’m going to repeat that because that’s a very important question in this case.

“The Court: All right. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I don’t want you to assume by that statement by defense counsel that he’s taking the position or expressing a position that his client is innocent because his client is presumed to be innocent, [¶] All right? [¶] Go ahead.

“Mr Pinkney: It’s important to point out that the word T was not used in a statement. Again, the question to you is: In our system, what can an innocent man without an alibi do? [¶] He can do no more than to enter a plea of not guilty.” (Italics added.)

Later, after defense counsel had discussed the presumption of innocence, defense counsel stated: “Now in this case, Mr. Tyler has the jury defense. That is, he turns to the jury system. He turns to the jury and asks the jury to perform its role in the system. Because of the presumption of innocence and because Mr. Tyler, the accused, has no burden of proof, as you sit there right now, as you sit there and think about my comments and the comments of the district attorney, you are under an obligation to perceive him as no different than an innocent man without an alibi.”

People v. Tyler

AI Brief

I. Trial Court’s Comments

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

II. Excluded Evidence*

AI Brief