Alvarado

*1580 Opinion

We hold that the prosecutor in this case committed prejudicial misconduct when she began her rebuttal jury argument by stating, “I have a duty and I have taken an oath as a deputy District Attorney not to prosecute a case if I have any doubt that that crime occurred, [f] The defendant charged is the person who did it.”

A jury convicted Jaime Alvarado of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§211, 212.5; all further undesignated section references are to the Penal Code). Thereafter, he admitted having suffered two prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)) which also constituted “strikes” under the three strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). He was sentenced to prison for 35 years to life.

Alvarado appeals, contending that (I) during her closing argument, the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct by improperly vouching for the integrity of her office and the victim when she argued that Alvarado was the perpetrator because he was the person charged, that no objection and admonition would have cured the harm, and that, if an objection and admonition would have cured the harm, his attorney was ineffective by failing to object and request an…

Assuming misconduct, I do not believe it was prejudicial. 1 Pedraza’s uncontroverted identification of Alvarado was absolute. He first noticed Alvarado when he was on the other side of the street, and watched as he approached. He became uncomfortable when he saw Alvarado’s tattoos and paid close attention to Alvarado’s appearance (and *1587 thus was able to identify the specific tattoos on Alvarado’s arms and neck). He testified that: “When I realized that I was being robbed, I decided to pay attention to details so this person could be caught later on.” Pedraza described Alvarado to the police, and “positively]” identified him from a photographic lineup and again at trial.

Given this air-tight identification and the absence of any affirmative defense that might have given the jury an alternative scenario, I do not see how the prosecutor’s comment could possibly have affected the outcome. I would affirm the judgment.

In my view, the only misconduct was the prosecutor’s affirmation of Alvarado’s guilt, and her other comments, in context, were permissible.

We hold that the prosecutor in this case committed prejudicial misconduct when she began her rebuttal jury argument by stating, "I have a duty and I have taken an oath as a deputy District Attorney not to prosecute a case if I have any doubt that that crime occurred. [¶] The defendant charged is the person who did it."

A jury convicted Jaime Alvarado of second degree robbery (Pen.Code, §§ 211, 212.5; all further undesignated section references are to the Penal Code). Thereafter, he admitted having suffered two prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)) which also constituted "strikes" under the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds.(b)-(i), 1170.12). He was sentenced to prison for 35 years to life.

Alvarado appeals, contending that (I) during her closing argument, the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct by improperly vouching for the integrity of her office and the victim when she argued that Alvarado was the perpetrator because he was the person charged, that no objection and admonition would have cured the harm, and that, if an objection and admonition would have cured the harm, his attorney was ineffective by failing to object and request an…