People v. Young CA1/3

DISCUSSION

1. Prosecutorial Misconduct Appellant contends the prosecutor engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by arguing in closing that appellant had not presented any evidence to support his asserted defense. We reject the contention. a. Background The prosecutor argued in closing that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish that appellant knew L.C. was going to rob Luanna and intentionally aided him by driving the getaway car. The prosecutor also explained that he had the burden of proof: “for you as jurors to convict [appellant] as an aider and abettor in this case, I have to prove certain elements.” Defense counsel argued that the circumstantial evidence was amenable to other reasonable interpretations, and that the jury must therefore find appellant not guilty. Defense counsel argued, “one reasonable interpretation is that . . . [L.C. and appellant] . . . had a preplanned meeting time. Said, hey, at 1:30 come pick me up. I’m going to be at Starbucks. [Appellant] pulls up, sees [L.C.], [L.C.] gets in the car.” Defense counsel also emphasized several times that the prosecution had the burden of proving each element beyond a reasonable doubt. In response to…