People v. Ybarra CA3

DISCUSSION

In his rebuttal closing argument, as discussed more fully below, the prosecutor commented that defendant was the only person “who knows” how the fatal collision occurred but did not explain “when he had the opportunity.” Defendant contends this

2 comment violated his Fifth Amendment rights and constituted error under Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609 [14 L.Ed.2d 106]. We disagree. I Additional Background In his rebuttal closing argument, the prosecutor commented: “[I]f the defendant was not intoxicated/impaired to the point where he did not know what he was doing or able to control his car, how did this accident--this collision happen?” He then addressed the officer’s testimony: “[T]hat’s what happened at the hospital when Officer Browning spoke to Defendant Ybarra. . . . [¶] . . . [¶] . . . He did not want to tell the officer that he had been drinking. Why? Because there was no other reasonable explanation for why and how this collision occurred. [¶] ‘How did you lose control?’ [¶] ‘I don’t know.’ ” After discussing defendant’s behavior following the collision and blood-alcohol level, the prosecutor continued: “And I go back to, if he was not intoxicated, why…