People v. Banks CA3
Opinion
Opinion
BACKGROUND
Given the arguments defendant makes on appeal, the underlying facts of the crimes are largely irrelevant. It is sufficient simply to note the following: “[Defendant], who suffers from delusional personality disorder, became influenced by conspiracy theories from the ‘alt-right’ QAnon group. Believing the need to rid his community of child molesters, [he] broke into the home of a convicted child molester [Ralph Mendez] and killed him. A jury found [him] guilty of premeditated murder and burglary, and then found him legally sane.”
DISCUSSION
A. Prosecutorial Error During Closing Argument During closing argument in the sanity phase of the trial, the prosecutor stated, “Defendant is now a convicted murderer and is presumed to have been sane at the time.” Defendant argues this misstates the law and constitutes prosecutorial misconduct or error.2 Even if we assume it misstates the law, we find no error. “Where, as here, the prosecutor is alleged to have misstated the law to the jury, this constitutes error only if (1) the prosecutor misstated the law, and (2) there is ‘ “a reasonable likelihood the jury understood or applied the [prosecutor’s remarks] in an