People v. King CA5

DISCUSSION

The prosecution presented evidence that defendant hit his girlfriend and struck her with a cane during an argument, causing her injuries. At the close of the prosecutor’s case, the defense rested without calling any witnesses, even though defense counsel had a defense witness (defendant’s ex-girlfriend) waiting to testify (a fact known to the court but not the jury). The court commented: “Okay. I think, obviously, you can tell I’m a little bit surprised about that. You are not to infer anything from the fact that I’m surprised, ladies and gentlemen. It was just not necessarily what I expected.” Defendant argues that the court’s comment was “fraught with implications which negatively and prejudicially affected [his] chances of a favorable verdict” and violated his constitutional rights to remain silent, to have an impartial jury, and to receive due process of law. He explains that “while the court’s comment was apparently innocently intended, it conveyed the unmistakable impression that in the court’s opinion the testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses was compelling enough so that in the absence of rebuttal by

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2…