People v. Griffin CA3

DISCUSSION

I Effective Assistance of Counsel Griffin argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney failed to object to part of the prosecutor’s closing argument. The portion of the argument to which Griffin now objects concerned the prosecutor’s attempt to explain reasonable doubt. The prosecutor first explained that if the evidence pointed to a reasonable conclusion that the defendant was not guilty, then the jury must find him not guilty, but that the jury could only accept reasonable conclusions. He then said:

“So when you’re looking at all the circumstantial evidence -- and, frankly, when you’re assessing the entire case and the evidence and whether or not a case is proved beyond a reasonable doubt, one way to look at it is, is the defense version of the case reasonable? And I’ll ask you to look at all that evidence. Are all of the things that the defense is saying isn’t proved a reasonable version, based on your entire look at the evidence?” Griffin argues this was misconduct because it shifted the burden to the defense to present a reasonable case. He relies primarily on People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800. In that case the prosecutor…