FILED
FEBRUARY 12, 2015
In the Office or the Clerk or Court
WA State Court or Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 31441-3-III
)
Respondent, )
)
v. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
BENJAMIN LOPEZ, JR., )
)
Appellant. )
LAWRENCE-BERREY, J. - A jury found Benjamin Lopez guilty of second degree
murder and drive-by shooting after a member of a rival gang was shot and killed.
Benjamin l appeals. He raises three issues. First, he contends that the court's to-convict
jury instructions violated due process by misstating the reasonable doubt standard, which
allowed the jury to convict even if reasonable doubt existed. Second, he contends that the
evidence was not sufficient to prove that he acted as an accomplice to the crimes. Last,
he contends that the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument, and the
cumulative error of the misconduct warrants reversal. We disagree with these contentions
To avoid confusion between Abraham Lopez Torres and his brother Benjamin
I
Lopez, we refer to the men by their first names.
No. 31441-3-II1
State v. Lopez
and affinn.
FACTS
On April 22, 2011, Adan Beltran was shot and killed outside of his home in
Quincy, Washington. Four men were associated with the shooting-Abraham Lopez
Torres, Benjamin Lopez, Alexis Hernandez, and Roberto Murillo.
Abraham, Benjamin, and Mr. Hernandez are members of the Marijuanos 13 street
gang, while Mr. Murillo is a member of a Surenos gang. The victim, Mr. Beltran, was a
member of the West Side 18th Street gang. The Marijuanos 13 gang and West Side 18th
gang are rivals and have physically fought with each other. Rumors circulated that the
West Side 18th Street gang was responsible for the death of Marijuanos 13 member
Edwin "Chow" Davalos, with Mr. Beltran being the shooter. Mr. Davalos and Benjamin
were close friends.
Benjamin was charged with first degree premeditated murder, second degree
murder, and drive-by shooting. Several aggravating circumstances were also charged,
including a gang aggravator. Brothers Abraham and Benjamin were tried together. The
State gave Mr. Hernandez immunity for his involvement with the crime in return for his
testimony at Abraham's and Benjamin's trial. Mr. Murillo pleaded guilty to second
degree murder and did not testifY.
2
No. 31441-3-II1
State v. Lopez
At the Lopez brothers' trial, Mr. Hernandez testified that he went to Quincy on
April 22 to meet with Benjamin and Abraham at the house of Marcos Avalos. Upon
arriving at the house, Mr. Hernandez saw Benjamin sitting in the front passenger seat of a
car, Abraham sitting in the driver's side passenger seat, and Robert Murillo driving the
car. Mr. Hernandez got into the rear passenger's side seat. Benjamin wanted to buy
marijuana. Benjamin gave driving directions to Mr. Murillo.
Eventually, the car turned down an alley. Mr. Hernandez observed Abraham
putting on a pair of gloves. The car stopped in the alley between two houses. Abraham
got out of the car and left. Shortly after, Mr. Hernandez heard multiple gun shots. He
then saw Abraham running back to the car. The bandana Abraham was wearing covered
the bottom half of his face and his sweatshirt hood was on with the strings cinched. Only
his eyes were visible. Abraham got back into the vehicle and it sped off. Mr. Hernandez
noticed a .357 caliber handgun on the seat next to him. Benjamin gave driving directions
to Mr. Murillo on how to get out of town.
The men parked by a canal to smoke some spice. Then, as they drove toward
Wenatchee, a police chase ensued. Abraham attempted to give guns to Mr. Hernandez
but Mr. Hernandez refused to get involved. Mr. Hernandez believed that Benjamin took
3
No. 31441-3-II1
State v. Lopez
the guns. As the vehicle stopped, Mr. Hernandez saw Benjamin throw something out of
the window.
Benjamin testified to a different account of the crime. He said that he was at Mr.
Avalos's house with Abraham and Mr. Hernandez for a barbeque. When Mr. Murillo
arrived at the party, they all got into his car to buy marijuana from a dealer that Benjamin
knew.
On the way to the dealer's house, someone saw Mr. Beltran in front of his home.
The men discussed that Mr. Beltran had been deported. Benjamin could not see well and
doubted that the man was Mr. Beltran because of the deportation. Benjamin noticed that
Mr. Hernandez and Mr. Murillo were tense.
Mr. Murillo turned down an alley in the trailer park. Benjamin heard a gun cock
behind him where Mr. Hernandez was sitting. Mr. Hernandez handed something up to
Mr. Murillo. Benjamin did not see the object, but believed it was a gun. The men
stopped at a trailer. Mr. Murillo said "let's go" and got out of the car with Mr. Hernandez
and Abraham. 10 Report of Proceedings (RP) at 199. Benjamin stayed inside and told
Abraham to get back into the car because he sensed something was going on. Abraham
walked a few feet and got back into the car. Mr. Murillo and Mr. Hernandez went around
the trailer and out of sight of Benjamin. Benjamin heard two or three gunshots and then
4
No. 31441-3-II1
State v. Lopez
saw Mr. Murillo and Mr. Hernandez jogging back to the car. The men took their same
seats and sped off. As they left, they almost hit another car.
As they parked by the canal to smoke spice, Benjamin asked Mr. Murillo what
happened. Mr. Murillo said nothing, and to shut up and kick back. The men were
apprehended after being chased by police. Benjamin testified that Mr. Murillo and Mr.
Hernandez told him not to talk to the police.
Four members of the Garces family saw the shooting and testified at trial. Alexia
Garces witnessed the shooting as she was riding in her mother's vehicle. She testified
that she saw a man with a gun shoot another man who was running away. She said the
shooter was wearing dark gloves, dark pants and hoodie with the hood up. The shooter
quickly got into a car and left down the alley.
Alexia's father and brother were traveling behind Alexia and her mother. Three of
the family members stated that they saw the shooter get back into the rear driver's sidepf
a blue four-door sedan. Two of the family members testified that this same vehicle nearly
collided with them as it attempted to flee the scene. All four family members said that the
occupants of the vehicle were Hispanic males.
Mr. Beltran was dead by the time emergency personnel responded to the scene of
the shooting. The Washington State Crime Lab determined that the bullet found in Mr.
5
No. 31441-3-II1
State v. Lopez
Beltran's body was fired out of a .25 caliber semi-automatic. The gun was found next to
the front passenger side door of the suspect's car, the location where Benjamin was
sitting.
DNA2 analysis was performed on items involved in the crime, including a blue knit
glove found inside the vehicle. The investigator found that Abraham was a substantial
contributor to the DNA found on the blue knit glove, with one in 42,000 persons
matching the profile.
The State introduced testimony and exhibits regarding gang culture in the area.
Deputy Joe Harris, a Grant County police officer with specialized gang training,
explained that it was his job to keep track of gangs in the area and gear members toward
resources that would help them change their lifestyle. Deputy Harris said that a member
is expected to benefitthe gang by "putting in work." 7 RP at 41. Work includes
assaulting rival gang members, and it is expected that members will do something to
disrespect a rival gang member when paths cross, such as throwing gang signs, trying to
instigate a fight, or attacking immediately. A gang member earns respect by putting in
work. Deputy Harris also said that killing a rival gang member suspected of killing a
member of your gang would be "putting in work." 7 RP at 63.
2 Deoxyribonucleic acid.
6
No. 31441-3-III
State v. Lopez
Deputy Harris testified that the Marijuanos 13 gang and West Side 18th Street
gang are rivals. He identified signature graffiti from both gangs, noted that an "x" drawn
over the gang graffiti is a sign of disrespect, and stated that West Side 18th Street gang
graffiti in Quincy had been marked in this way.
Mr. Hernandez and Benjamin testified to the rivalry between the gangs. Mr.
Hernandez said that the Marijuanos had x-ed out 18th Street graffiti and that the
Marijuanos fought with the 18th Street gang more than 20 times. Mr. Hernandez said that
he was shot at by the 18th Street gang three times. Benj amin said that he had been
involved in armed fights with the 18th Street gang, and that killing an 18th Streeter would
benefit his gang.
Mr. Hernandez said he participated in gang activities with Abraham and Benjamin.
He said the murder of Mr. Davalos angered Benjamin and Abraham, as well as himself.
He confirmed that Marijuanos rumors alleged Mr. Beltran murdered Mr. Davalos. Mr.
Hernandez said that when Mr. Davalos died, one of the brothers said "[0]h, they fucked
up." 7 RP at 210. In remembrance, Benjamin tattooed RIP Chow Loco on his arm for
Mr. Davalos.
Mr. Hernandez said that committing murder would raise a person's standing in
Marijuanos 13. On the other hand, Mr. Hernandez said that a Marijuanos 13 gang rule
7
No. 31441-3-111
State v. Lopez
prohibits testifying against a fellow gang member, and the penalty for violating the rule is
that they try to kill you or they do kill you.
When Mr. Hernandez was initially questioned by police, he told them that he knew
nothing about the shooting. He also told police that he was scared to testify against
Benjamin and Abraham. A few days later, Mr. Hernandez spoke to police again and gave
his account of the shooting.
Abraham's attorney drew attention to the fact that Mr. Hernandez entered into a
deal with the prosecutor and was given absolute immunity in exchange for his testimony.
Defense counsel asked Mr. Hernandez whether his testimony needed to be consistent with
what he previously told law enforcement to benefit from the deal. Mr. Hernandez
responded that he was to testify to the truth. When defense counsel pointed out that the
prosecutor would decide if Mr. Hernandez met the conditions of his agreement to testify,
Mr. Hernandez repeated his obligation was to cooperate. A third time Mr. Hernandez
stated, "I'm just trying to say the truth." 7 RP at 198.
Benjamin's ,attorney asked Mr. Hernandez whether he ever thought about his
option to lie to police. Mr. Hernandez responded that during his initial interview with
police, he did not want to tell police what happened because he was scared. Counsel
pressed the point, asking, "Well, you did not only not want to tell them what happened, in
8
No. 31441-3-111
State v. Lopez
fact, you took door number three, didn't you?" 8 RP at 49. Mr. Hernandez responded,
"yes," and that door number three was to "lie." 8 RP at 49. When defense counsel
repeated "[y]ou lied," Mr. Hernandez responded, "I didn't lie-what I'm saying now is
not a lie. What I testified to yesterday and today is not a lie. What I told the officer, I
told him I didn't know what happened, which I did know." 8 RP at 49.
Defense counsel asked Mr. Hernandez whether the prosecutor told him to
repeatedly say that he was telling the truth and whether he practiced that phrase as part of
a script. Mr. Hernandez responded, "He's told me to tell the truth, to do what's right."
8 RP at 64. Defense counsel then questioned Mr. Hernandez about inconsistencies in his
testimony. Later, defense counsel again questioned Mr. Hernandez about his deal with
the State, stating, "And the exchange [with the State] was this: You testify against them
and you will have your murder charges dismissed." 8 RP at 114. Mr. Hernandez replied,
"Incorrect. The deal was I cooperate and testify truthfully." 8 RP at 114.
At the conclusion of the State's case, the court dismissed some of the aggravators,
but left all charges in place. Abraham and Benjamin stipulated that they were members
of the Marijuanos 13 criminal street gang.
The trial court prepared draft jury instructions for the parties to review. The
reasonable doubt standard in the trial court's to-convict instructions informed the jury that
9
No.3l44l-3-III
State v. Lopez
"if, after weighing all of the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt as to anyone of these
elements[,] then you should return a verdict of not guilty." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 143
(emphasis added). A jury instruction conference was held. After receiving comments,
the court invited counsel to prepare proposals to incorporate requested modifications into
the instructions.
Benjamin's counsel proposed to-convict jury instructions for first and second
degree murder that incorporated accomplice liability. Benjamin's proposed instructions
also used the phrase "should return [a] verdict of not guilty." CP at 128-29 (emphasis
added).
After the trial court distributed a third draft of proposed jury instructions, the State
alerted the trial court to erroneous wording of the reasonable doubt standard. The State
argued that instructing a jury that it "should" return a verdict of not guilty is improper.
Instead, the State urged the court to instruct the jury according to the Washington Pattern
Jury Instructions, informing the jury of their "duty" to return a verdict of guilty or not
guilty based on the evidence. The State said it was involved in an appeal on the very
same issue and the argument is that "should" is somewhat optional; not a must. The State
,
posed the question, "Basically is should mandatory enough or can the jury disregard it or
do what they want? Basically jury nullification either way." 11 RP at 72.
10
No. 31441-3-III
State v. Lopez
The trial court stated that it had used the "should" language before and the purpose
of the language was to allow for jury nullification. The court and the State discussed jury
nulli-fication in the presence of the defense. The State took the position that jury
nullification and a corresponding instruction was not supported by law.
The court asked for the defense's position on the,matter. Abraham's counsel
answered, "The court is not-the proposed instruction does not tell the jury that they can
nUllifY their verdict. That's all." 11 RP at 74. When asked by the court if counsel had
any objection to the use of the word "should" as opposed to "duty," Abraham's counsel
answered "[n]one." 11 RP at 74. The court clarified that the "should" language went
"[bJoth directions." 11 RP at 74. Counsel again answered that he had no objection. The
trial court then asked Benjamin's counsel ifhe had any objections. Counsel replied, "We
have-we don't take exception to any of the instructions as proposed." 11 RP at 74.
The trial court stated that it was interested in the outcome of the pending appeal on
the issue, "[bJut in this case, since neither defendant-since each defendant waives any
objection, then I think I will not make that change and the jury will be instructed as set
forth in the third draft." 11 RP at 75. The to-convict instructions informed the jury that it
"should return a verdict of not guilty," mirroring the language first suggested by the court
and included in Benjamin's proposed jury instruction. CP at 192, 196,201.
11
No. 31441-3-111
State v. Lopez
A jury found Benjamin gUilty of second degree felony murder and guilty of drive-
by shooting. The jury found Benjamin not guilty of first degree murder and acquitted him
of multiple charged aggravating circumstances.
Benjamin appeals. He assigns error to the to-convict jury instructions. Also, he
contends that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of accomplice liability and that
the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing arguments.
ANALYSIS
The Trial Court's To-Convict Instructions. For the first time on appeal, Benjamin
contends that the to-convict jury instructions violated his right to due process because
they failed to accurately convey the reasonable doubt standard to the jury. He identifies
the reasonable doubt portion of the instruction that states, if, after weighing all of the
evidence, you have a reasonable doubt as to anyone of these elements, "then you should
return a verdict of not guilty." CP at 192, 196,201 (emphasis added). This language
changes the reasonable doubt standard in 11 Washington Practice: Washington Pattern
Jury Instructions: Criminal 27.04 at 381 (3d ed. 2008) (WPIC) that states "it will be your
duty to return a verdict of not guilty." (Emphasis added.)
Benjamin maintains that by replacing "your duty" with "should," the trial court's
instruction did not impose a mandatory duty on the jury to acquit if reasonable doubt
12
No. 31441-3-III
State v. Lopez
existed. This instruction confused the jury and allowed them to return a guilty verdict
even if they had a reasonable doubt as to Benjamin's guilt. Thus, the court relieved the
State of the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, thereby violating due process and
constituting manifest constitutional error. We agree with Benjamin. See State v. Smith,
174 Wn. App. 359, 366, 298 PJd 785, review denied, 178 Wn.2d 1008,308 PJd 643
(2013).
In a criminal trial, due process conveys the burden on the State to prove every
element ofa crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1,5, 114 S.
Ct. 1239, 127 L. Ed. 2d 583 (1994). "A corollary of the due process requirement that a
jury find proof beyond a reasonable doubt in order to return a verdict of guilty is that it
must return a verdict of not guilty if the State does not carry its burden .... It is
reversible error to instruct the jury in a manner relieving the State of its burden." Smith,
174 Wn. App. at 366. We apply de novo review to a challenged jury instruction. State v.
Bennett, 161 Wn.2d 303,307,165 PJd 1241 (2007). "The jury instructions, read as a
whole, 'must make the relevant legal standard manifestly apparent to the average juror.'''
State v. Kyllo, 166 Wn.2d 856, 864, 215 PJd 177 (2009) (quoting State v. Walden, 131
Wn.2d 469,473,932 P.2d 1237 (1997)).
13
No. 31441·3·III
State v. Lopez
In Smith, the trial court prepared jury instructions that differed from the WPIC.
Smith, 174 Wn. App. at 362. Of importance, the court instructed the jury that '" if, after
weighing all the evidence, you have reasonable doubt[,] you should return a verdict of not
guilty.'" Id. at 363 (some alterations in original). On appeal, Mr. Smith argued that the
instruction relieved the State of its burden of proof because the instruction left the jury
with the impression that it ought to acquit if it possessed reasonable doubt, but acquittal
was not mandatory. Id. at 366-67. Acknowledging the due process rights at stake, this
court allowed Mr. Smith to raise his challenge to the elements instruction for the first time
on appeal because it involved a manifest error involving a constitutional right. Id. at 365.
We held that a corollary of due process requires that a jury must return a verdict of not
guilty if the State does not carry its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at
366. And, that even though the jury likely understood that the court's use of "should" in
the elements instruction expressed a mandatory action, we could not be sure that it did.
Id. at 368. The trial court's erroneous instruction was a structural error that required
reversal of Mr. Smith's conviction. Id. at 368-69.
Here, as in Smith, the trial court erroneously instructed the jury that it "should"
return a verdict of not guilty based on the evidence. This instruction relieved the State of
14
No. 31441-3-III
State v. Lopez
its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We decline the State's request to
revisit Smith and consider cases outside this court's jurisdiction.
Even though Smith supports Benjamin's position, we agree with the State that
Benjamin cannot raise this issue for the first time on appeal because he invited the error.
"Even where a constitutional error is manifest, it can still be waived if the issue is
deliberately not litigated during trial." State v. Hayes, 165 Wn. App. 507, 515,265 PJd
982 (2011).3 The invited error doctrine prohibits a party from setting up an error at trial
then complaining of it on appeal. State v. Henderson, 114 Wn.2d 867, 870, 792 P.2d 514
(1990) (quoting State v. Pam, 101 Wn.2d 507, 511,680 P.2d 762 (1984), overruled on
other grounds by State v. Olson, 126 Wn.2d 315, 893 P.2d 629 (1995». For example, a
defendant may not request instructions be given to the jury and then complain upon
3 The State also argued that this issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal
because it is not a manifest error. We disagree. Generally, an error cannot be raised for
the first time on appeal unless it is a "manifest error affecting a constitutional right."
RAP 2.5(a)(3); State v. O'Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 97-98, 217 PJd 756 (2009). Establishing
manifest error requires a showing of actual prejudice. State v. Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d 918,
935, 155 P.3d 125 (2007). Actual prejudice occurs when the asserted error had practical
and identifiable consequences at trial. Id. (quoting State v. WWJ Corp., 138 Wn.2d 595,
603,980 P.2d 1257 (1999». An error in a to-convict instruction is significant because the
instruction implicates the standard used by the jury to determine guilt or innocence. See
State v. Mills, 154 Wn.2d 1,6, 109 P.3d 415 (2005). Thus, misstating the standard by
instructing the jury that it can acquit despite the presence of reasonable doubt has
practical and identifiable consequences and is a manifest error affecting a constitutional
right.
15
No. 31441-3-II1
State v. Lopez
appeal that the instructions are constitutionally deficient, even if the error is of
constitutional magnitude. State v. Aho, 137 Wn.2d 736, 744-45, 975 P.2d 512 (1999).
The invited error doctrine applies only where the defendant engaged in some affirmative
action by which he knowingly and voluntarily set up the error. In re Pers. Restraint of
Call, 144 Wn.2d 315,326-28,28 P.3d 709 (2001). We apply the invited error doctrine as
a "strict rule" to situations where the defendant's actions at least in part caused the error.
State v. Studd, 137 Wn.2d 533, 547, 973 P.2d 1049 (1999).
Here, Benjamin invited the error in the jury instructions because he proposed the
erroneous instruction. Also, during the jury instruction conference, the State informed
Benjamin that the "should" language allowed for jury nullification because it did not
impose a mandatory duty to follow the court's instructions on returning a verdict of
gUilty. Yet, when asked for his position on the instruction, Benjamin's attorney did not
take issue with the instruction.
The invited error doctrine precludes Benjamin from challenging the jury
instruction on appeal. His appeal raises essentially the same arguments that he rejected in
the trial court-no mandatory duty was imposed on the jury to return a not guilty verdict.
He cannot complain of an error that he actively set up at triaL Under these circumstances,
reversal of Benjamin's convictions is not warranted.
16
No. 31441-3-III
State v. Lopez
Sufficiency ofEvidence to Prove Accomplice Liability. Benjamin contends that the
evidence is insufficient to support the accomplice liability guilty verdict for drive-by
shooting and second degree felony murder. He maintains that the State failed to prove
that he knew his acts would aid in the drive-by shooting of Mr. Beltran. Further, he
maintains that without an accomplice conviction for the predicate felony, the conviction
for second degree felony murder fails as well.
In every criminal prosecution, due process requires that the State prove, beyond a
reasonable doubt, every fact necessary to constitute the charged crime. In re Winship,
397 U.S. 358, 364, 90S. Ct. 1068,25 L. Ed. 2d 368 (1970). When a defendant
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the proper inquiry is "whether, after viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have
found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P .2d
1068 (1992). "[A]ll reasonable inferences from the evidence must be drawn in favor of
the State and interpreted most strongly against the defendant." Id. The appellant admits
the truth of the State's evidence and all inferences that can reasonably be drawn from it,
giving equal weight to circumstantial and direct evidence. State v. Hermann, 138 Wn.
App. 596, 602, 158 P.3d 96 (2007). We defer to the trier of fact on issues of conflicting
17
No. 31441-3-II1
State v. Lopez
testimony, credibility of witnesses, and persuasiveness of the evidence. State v.
Killingsworth, 166 Wn. App. 283,287,269 P.3d 1064 (2012).
A person is guilty of second degree felony murder when he or she commits or
attempts to commit any felony and, in the course or furtherance of such crime, he or she
or another participant causes the death of another person other than one of the
participants. RCW 9A.32.050(1)(b). A person is guilty of drive-by shooting when he or
she recklessly discharges a firearm in a manner that creates a substantial risk of death or
serious physical injury to another person and the discharge is either from a motor vehicle
or from the immediate area of the motor vehicle that was used to transport the shooter or
the firearm, or both, to the scene of the discharge. RCW 9A.36.045(1).
For a person to be an accomplice to felony murder, the person must with
knowledge that it will promote or facilitate the commission of the crime, solicit,
command, encourage, or request such other person to commit it; or aids or agrees to aid
such other person in planning or committing it. RCW 9A.08.020(3)(a). A person aids in
the commission of a crime if he or she is present and ready to assist in committing the
crime. State v. Wi/son, 95 Wn.2d 828,833,631 P.2d 362 (1981).
To convict Benjamin as either an accomplice or a principal, the State needed to
prove the particular crime was committed and that Benjamin participated in it. State v.
18
No. 31441-3-II1
State v. Lopez
Teal, 152 Wn.2d 333,339,96 P.3d 974 (2004). The criminal Ii ability of an accomplice is
the same as that of the principal. State v. Carter, 154 Wn.2d 71, 78, 109 P.3d 823 (2005)
(quoting State v. Graham, 68 Wn. App. 878, 881, 846 P.2d 578 (1993)).
For felony murder, liability may be imputed to a coparticipant who does not
actually commit the homicide. Id. When one participant in a predicate felony alone
commits a homicide during the commission of, or flight from, such felony, another
participant in the predicate felony has, by definition, committed felony murder. Id.
Therefore, in the felony murder context, the State need not prove that the nonkiller
participant was an accomplice to the homicide. Id. at 79. Rather, the State need prove
only that Benjamin was an accomplice and a participant to the felony offense of drive-by
shooting. See id.
Here, the evidence to convict Benjamin is circumstantial. There is no direct
evidence to show that he knew that his brother or one of his friends in the car would shoot
Mr. Beltran and that he aided in the crime. However, circumstantial evidence is given the
same weight as direct evidence and can support a guilty verdict.
Interpreting the evidence and inferences therefrom in favor of the State, we find
there is sufficient evidence to support an accomplice liability verdict for Benjamin. After
weighing the credibility of the witness and the evidence, it was possible for the jury to
19
No. 31441-3-II1
State v. Lopez
find that Benjamin knew that the murder of Mr. Beltran would occur. Benjamin had
motive to participate in the crime. Benjamin's good friend Mr. Davalos was killed, and
Benjamin's gang believed Mr. Beltran's gang was responsible for the murder. Benjamin
was angry about Mr. Davalos's death. Soon before Mr. Beltran was shot, Benjamin got a
tattoo in his memory reading, RIP Chow Loco. Testimony was given at trial that killing a
rival gang member that killed a member of your gang earns respect and benefits the gang.
Similarly, committing murder in the Marijuanos 13, Benjamin's gang, earned respect.
Additionally, Benjamin's acts prior to and directly after the shooting provided
circumstantial evidence that he knew that the men were set on killing Mr. Beltran. Mr.
Hernandez testified that Benjamin gave Mr. Murillo directions to the alley where the car
stopped. Mr. Hernandez said that Benjamin did not react to Mr. Murillo stopping or
when his brother got out of the car. When his brother returned with a gun anda bandana
over his face, Benjamin was calm. Benjamin gave directions as the men sped out of
town. The jury could infer from these facts that Benjamin knew Abraham and Mr.
Murillo intended to commit a drive-by shooting and that Benjamin aided in commission
of the crime.
20
No. 31441-3-III
State v. Lopez
Prosecutor's Closing Argument. Benjamin contends that the State made several
inflammatory statements during closing arguments that amounted to prosecutorial
misconduct. We address each statement in turn.
To establish prosecutorial misconduct, Benjamin must show that the prosecutor's
statements were improper and, as a result, prejudicial. State v. Dhaliwal, 150 Wn.2d 559,
578, 79 P.3d 432 (2003). For improper statements that were followed by a proper
objection, a prosecutor's statements are prejudicial if the statement had a substantial
likelihood of affecting the jury's verdict. State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741, 760,278 P.3d
653 (2012).
However, "[i]fthe defendant did not object at trial, the defendant is deemed to
have waived any error, unless the prosecutor's misconduct was so flagrant and ill
intentioned that an instruction could not have cured the resulting prejudice." Id. at 760
61. "Under this heightened standard, the defendant must show that (1) 'no curative
instruction would have obviated any prejudicial effect on the jury' and (2) the misconduct
resulted in prejudice that' had a substantial likelihood of affecting the jury verdict. '" Id.
at 761 (quoting State v. Thorgerson, 172 Wn.2d 438, 455, 258 P.3d 43 (2011)).
"Reviewing courts should focus less on whether the prosecutor's misconduct was flagrant
or ill intentioned and more on whether the resulting prejudice could have been cured." Id.
21
No. 31441-3-111
State v. Lopez
at 762. A proper jury instruction generally c(:mnot cure a statement that has an
inflammatory effect. Id. at 763.
"Any allegedly improper statements should be viewed within the context of the
prosecutor's entire argument, the issues in the case, the evidence discussed in the
argument, and the jury instructions." Dhaliwal, 150 Wn.2d at 578. A prosecutor is given
wide latitude in closing arguments to draw and express reasonable inferences from the
evidence. State v. Perez-Mejia, 134 Wn. App. 907, 916, 143 P.3d 838 (2006).
1. "Right thing to do." First, Benjamin alleges that the prosecutor attempted to
align the jury with the prosecutor's office by telling the jury that convicting Benjamin was
the right thing to do. In the beginning of closing argument, the prosecutor said,
No matter what you do when you get back there to deliberate, it's not
going to be easy. Nobody ever told you it would be .... But when it's
done, I'm going to ask you to do one thing. I'm going to stand here and ask
you to do what is right. Because it is proper and because the evidence in the
case leaves you only one conclusion.
12 RP at 30.
It is misconduct for a prosecutor to "try to exhort the jury to 'do its job'; that kind
of pressure, whether by the prosecutor or defense counsel, has no place in the
administration of criminal justice." United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 18, 105 S. Ct.
1038,84 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1985). Similarly, this court has held that it is improper for the State
22
No. 31441-3-III
State v. Lopez
to make an argument that could be construed as "telling the jury that it would violate its
oath ifit disagreed with the State's theory of the evidence." State v. Coleman, 74 Wn.
App. 835, 839, 876 P.2d 458 (1994).
Here, the prosecutor's statement, when taken in context, was not improper. The
statement did not attempt to align the jury with the prosecutor or instruct the jury that it
could submit a guilty verdict based on what it believed was right. Instead, the prosecutor
instructed the jury that it should do what was right based on the evidence, even though
getting to that decision may be tough. The prosecutor did not tell the jury that it must
reach the State's conclusion in order to do what is right.
Benjamin contends that the State continued this theme of the "right thing to do"
throughout the trial. He also calls attention to the prosecutor's discussion of Mr.
Hernandez's decision to testifY. The prosecutor stated, "But [Mr. Hernandez] did decide
to do the right thing after the police told him his mother wanted him to, and he quickly
gave them an initial outline that completely fit the facts of this case." 12 RP at 53.
Additionally, Benjamin contends that the statement is improper because no evidence
presented at trial addressed Mr. Hernandez's mother's wishes. It is reversible error for a
prosecutor to urge a jury to decide a case based on evidence outside the record. State v.
Pierce, 169 Wn. App. 533, 553, 280 P.3d 1158 (2012).
23
No. 31441-3-II1
State v. Lopez
Again, this statement does not attempt to align the jury with the State. Instead,
when taken in context, the statement responded to defense's theory that Mr. Hernandez's
testimony was not credible because he was given a deal for his testimony. While true that
there was no evidence to support the statement that he told the investigating officer the
truth because his mother wanted him to, Mr. Hernandez did testify that he talked to police
because he decided to do the right thing and that police told him his mom was sad. Even
with this error referencing the mother, the comment was a brief, one time assertion that
could have been cured by a limiting instruction. This minor misstatement did not likely
affect the jury's verdict.
2. Send a message. Benjamin contends that the prosecutor committed misconduct
by encouraging the jury to return a guilty verdict in order to send a message to gangs in
the local community. For instance, he cites the prosecutor's statements, "You heard
Alexis Hernandez say that he had been shot at on three separate occasions. This is an 18
year old who's already been shot at on three separate occasions. This is out of hand."
12 RP at 32. Benjamin also contends that this statement inappropriately implies that
Benjamin was somehow responsible for shots being fired at Mr. Hernandez.
A prosecutor's closing statement is improper if it merely appeals to the passion and
prejudice of a jury or references prejudicial allusions outside of evidence. State v.
24
No. 31441-3-111
State v. Lopez
Belgarde, 110 Wn.2d 504,507, 755 P.2d 174 (1988) (quoting State v. Belgarde, 46 Wn.
App. 441, 448, 730 P.2d 746 (1986)). "[A] prosecutor engages in misconduct when
making an argument that appeals to jurors' fear and repudiation of criminal groups or
invokes racial, ethnic, or religious prejudice as a reason to convict." Perez-Mejia, 134
Wn. App. at 916. Misconduct also occurs when a prosecutor repeatedly urges jurors to
convict a criminal in order to protect community values, preserve civil order, or deter
future criminal activity. State v. Ramos, 164 Wn. App. 327, 338, 263 P.3d 1268 (2011)
(quoting United States v. Solivan, 937 F.2d 1146, 1153 (6th Cir. 1991)).
In Perez-Mejia, the court held that the prosecutor's closing argument was improper
and prejudicial when the prosecutor asked the jury to
"[s]end a message to Scorpion, to other members of his gang ... and to all
the other people who choose to dwell in the underworld of gangs. That
message is we had enough. We will not tolerate it any longer. That we as
citizens of the State of Washington and the United States of America, we
have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and we will no
longer allow those who choose to dwell in the underworld of gangs to stifle
our rights. And that message begins now.
It begins now by finding that the defendant was involved in the death
of Ms. Emmitt."
Perez-Mejia, 134 Wn. App. at 917 (footnote omitted). The trial court overruled the
defendant's objection "to call for messages." Jd. The appellate court ruled that this
argument improperly invoked the juror's patriotic sentiment and cast the defendant as an
25
No. 31441-3-111
State v. Lopez
oppressor of inalienable rights. ld. at 918. This, when combined with a statement
referencing the defendant's "machismo," were racially prejudicial comments that affected
the jury's verdict. ld. Additionally, the court found that the prejudice was magnified by
the issues in the case. ld. Of importance, the court found that the statement appealed to
the jury's passion and prejudice by inviting them to decide based on their fear of crime.
ld. at 919.
In Belgarde, the prosecutor referenced the American Indian Movement (AIM) and
the chilling events of Wounded Knee, South Dakota. Belgarde, 110 Wn.2d at 507. The
prosecutor said the group was a militant group to be afraid of like the Irish Republican
Army and that the defendant was a part of the group. ld. at 506-07. The defendant did
not object. ld. at 507-08. On appeal, the court concluded that the statements were
improper and prejudicial. ld. at 508. The court held that an objection and instruction to
disregard could not have erased the fear and revulsions jurors would have felt if they had
believed the prosecutor's descriptions ofthe Indians involved in AIM. ld. at 507-08.
Additionally, the court found that the prosecutor's statements could not be considered
proper argument because they were. not supported by any evidence in the case. ld. at 508
09. Thus, the prosecutor's statements, which were based on his own memory of the
events of Wounded Knee, was testimony and improper. ld.
26
No. 31441-3-II1
State v. Lopez
Here, the prosecutor's statement did not directly ask the jury to convict Benjamin
in order to send a message to gangs in Grant County. However, it does appeal to the
passion and prejudice of a jury by calling attention to the amount of gang violence in the
community and implying that a conviction would help stop the violence. Even then, we
do not find this statement flagrant and ill-intentioned to the point that it could not have
been cured by a limiting instruction. See Dhaliwal, 150 Wn.2d at 580-81. While the
statement calls attention to gang violence, the State's theory of motive was gang
retaliation. The State produced evidence of repeated gang violence, including Mr.
Hernandez's testimony that he was shot at on three separate occasions. There is no
inference that either Abraham or Benjamin was responsible for the three shootings at Mr.
Hernandez.
Perez-Mejia and Belgarde do not persuade us to reach a different conclusion.
Both of those cases involve arguments that do more than simply reference the out-of
control nature of gang violence and are much more egregious than Benjamin's situation.
The prosecutors in Perez-Mejia and Belgarde both made improper, unsupported
references to classes of people and used prejudice and stereotypes as a basis for finding
guilt. The prosecutor appealed to the passion and prejudice of the jury by asking to
27
No. 31441-3-III
State v. Lopez
decide based on fear of these groups ofpeop1e. In both cases, the argument was repeated
and not based on evidence presented at trial.
At Benjamin's trial, the contested statement that gang violence is out of hand was
not the overarching theme of the case. Admittedly, while gang activity and retribution
was mentioned throughout the prosecution's closing argument, this was based on
evidence of gang violence presented at trial and the State's theory of motive. Most
importantly, the statements did not reinforce stereotypes or invoke racial prejudices. The
prosecutor's statement was not so inflammatory that it could not have been cured by an
instruction and, thus, did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct.
3. Propensity for violence. Benjamin contends that the prosecutor committed
misconduct by encouraging the jury to use evidence of gang affiliations to conclude that
Benjamin had a propensity for violence. For example, he quotes the prosecutor,
Let's talk for a moment about common sense and human emotion.
These young men have committed their lives to this group, and we know
that one of their friends was murdered. And we know from our human
experience that revenge and retribution is a natural human desire. Maybe
not for everyone. Maybe not for everyone in this courtroom. Maybe not for
everyone in the world. But it is definitely fair to say that it is a natural
desire for many. And certainly it would be a more natural desire for people
who have committed their lives to a criminal street gang, people who have
actively engaged in back and forth fighting.
12 RP at 38.
28
No. 31441-3-III
State v. Lopez
Prior bad acts cannot be used to establish a person's propensity to commit a
current crime. ER 404(b). "[T]he only relevance between the prior acts and the current
act is the inference that once a criminal always a criminal." State v. Wade, 98 Wn. App.
328, 336, 989 P .2d 576 (1999).
Evidence of gang affiliation is presumed prejudicial. State v. Scott, 151 Wn. App.
520,526,213 P.3d 71 (2009). However, when evidence of gang membership can be
connected to the crime, such evidence is admissible. Id. "Courts have regularly admitted
gang affiliation evidence to establish the motive for a crime or to show that defendants
were acting in concert." Id. at 527.
The prosecutor was free to discuss gang affiliation during closing argument.
Benjamin stipulated to his membership in the Marijuanos 13 gang during trial.
Furthermore, Benjamin was charged with the aggravating circumstance that he committed
the crime to benefit a criminal street gang, so gang affiliation was crucial for this charge.
Although armed with evidence of gang affiliation, the prosecutor did not use
Benjamin's gang membership to show his propensity to commit the shooting. The
prosecutor did not ask the jury to convict Benjamin based on his membership in a
criminal street gang or because he had a natural desire to seek revenge and retribution.
Instead, the prosecutor used gang affiliation as part of the motive for the crime
29
No. 31441-3-III
State v. Lopez
retribution for the death of Mr. Davalos, a fellow gang member. In Benjamin's situation,
evidence showed that he and Mr. Davalos had a close relationship, that he was upset
when Mr. Davalos was killed, and that gang members suspected Mr. Beltran of the crime.
Mr. Beltran was a member of a rival street gang that often fought with Benjamin's gang.
Testimony established that it was common in gang culture to kill members of rival gangs
when the rival member is suspected of killing a member of the opposing gang. In
Benjamin's gang, committing murder would raise a person's standing. In sum, the
prosecutor did not use gang membership to show propensity, but instead to show motive
for the current crime. The prosecutor used the above statement to explain the thought
processes of gang members and why Benjamin would act as an accomplice to the murder.
This argument was not improper.
4. Vouchingfor the credibility ofa witness. Benjamin contends that the
prosecutor improperly vouched for the credibility of Mr. Hernandez by personally
supporting his testimony and by adding facts not in the record. He gives four examples of
this error. First, Benjamin contends that the prosecutor used a stereotype to support
credibility by arguing that the jury should believe Mr. Hernandez's testimony because Mr.
Hernandez was not smart enough to lie. Second, he contends that the prosecutor
attempted to bolster Mr. Hernandez's testimony by telling the jury that Mr. Hernandez
30
No. 31441·3-III
State v. Lopez
would have come up with a better story ifhe was lying. Third, Benjamin contends that
the prosecutor implied that he personally believed Mr. Hernandez when he told the jury
that Mr. Hernandez risked his life to tell the truth. Fourth, the prosecutor again affirmed
his own belief in Mr. Hernandez's testimony by arguing that Mr. Hernandez knew he
needed to tell the truth so his story would not be disproven by other evidence.
Benjamin identifies two particular statements that support his contentions. First,
he cites to the prosecutor's statement, "And there's one other thing that the jury probably
picked up on. [Mr. Hernandez] is not real bright. He's just not a real bright guy. He just
doesn't have the ability to make up a complex story and be consistent with it. He just
doesn't." 12 RP at 54.
In the other statement, the prosecutor told the jury during rebuttal, "If a witness
were bought and paid for, wouldn't his testimony have been a little bit better? If this was
really a situation of say what we want you to say, wouldn't he have said, I actually saw
Abraham shoot the gun? He didn't say that. Because he didn't see it. He testified to
what he knew, no more, no less." 12 RP at 162.
"It is misconduct for a prosecutor to state a personal belief as to the credibility of a
witness. However, prosecutors have wide latitude to argue reasonable inferences from
the facts concerning witness credibility, and prejudicial error will not be found unless it is
31
No. 31441-3-111
State v. Lopez
clear and unmistakable." State v. Allen, 176 Wn.2d 611,631,294 P.3d 679 (2013).
Improper vouching occurs when the prosecutor expresses his personal belief in the
veracity of the witness or indicates that evidence not presented at trial supports the
testimony of the witness. Thorgerson, 172 Wn.2d at 443.
"Remarks of the prosecutor, even if they are improper, are not grounds for reversal
if they were invited or provoked by defense counsel and are in reply to his or her acts and
statements, unless the remarks are not a pertinent reply or are so prejudicial that a curative
instruction would be ineffective." State v. Russell, 125 Wn.2d 24, 86, 882 P.2d 747
(1994). A prosecutor can argue that the evidence does not support the defense theory and
is entitled to make a fair response to defense arguments. Id. at 87.
In Russell, a constant theme in the defendant's case was that the police had
inadequately investigated the charged murders. Id. In response, the State argued that
further investigation was offered to and rejected by the defense and, therefore, some
incriminating evidence may not have been developed. Id. The court held the State's
argument was a fair response to defense criticisms. Id. Furthermore, any impropriety
was ameliorated by a curative instruction. Id.
In considering Benjamin's first credibility challenge, we conclude that the
prosecutor went outside the evidence in the case when he stated that Mr. Hernandez could
32
No. 31441-3-III
State v. Lopez
not make up his account of the shooting because he was not smart enough. In our review
of the record, there is no evidence regarding Mr. Hernandez's mental capacity or his
ability to make up a story. The prosecutor bolstered Mr. Hernandez's credibility by
giving an unsupported reason as to why he was telling the truth. While we find this
statement improper, any minimal prejudicial effect could have been cured by a limiting
instruction.
We reject the remainder of Benjamin's contentions that the prosecutor improperly
vouched for the credibility of Mr. Hernandez. The challenged statements did not imply
that the prosecutor personally believed Mr. Hernandez. Like in Russell, it was proper for
the prosecutor to rebut defense argument and say that if Mr. Hernandez was lying, then he
clearly would have made up a better story and that he needed to tell the truth so his story
would not be disproven. Both Abraham and Benjamin attempted to discredit Mr.
Hernandez by contending that he was lying, that he took the deal from the State to avoid
prosecution, and that he was simply saying what the prosecutor wanted to hear. The State
had wide latitude to respond to this argument. The State responded by arguing that Mr.
Hernandez's story did not provide the level of incriminatory evidence that the State would
have liked to present if it were a lie. The argument merely responded to the defense's
argument that Mr. Hernandez was not telling the truth.
33
No. 31441-3-III
State v. Lopez
Furthennore, the prosecutor did not imply that he personally believed Mr.
Hernandez when he told the jury that Mr. Hernandez risked his life to tell the truth. The
prosecutor argued, "At first, he was reluctant to talk. And he told you why on the stand.
He said he didn't want to testity against these two guys. He felt concern for his safety."
12 RP at 53. The prosecutor was restating the testimony of Mr. Hernandez and not
implying his personal belief.
5. Misstatement a/the burden a/proof Benjamin contends that the prosecutor
lowered the burden of proof for accomplice liability by telling the jury that Benjamin was
ready to assist in the crime because it was his obligation as a gang member. In describing
the events on the night of the murder, the State argued, "Now, while this was going on,
the other three Surenos, two of them Marijuanos 13 members, were in the car with
another gun, ready to assist, if necessary. Of course, they were ready to assist, that is their
obligation as a fellow gang member. That is his obligation as a brother." 12 RP at 49.
In the State's rebuttal argument, the prosecutor said,
You heard Mr. Crowley say that [Mr.] Hernandez is guilty as an
accomplice. And you know the driver also is also guilty, as well. Now,
what did Mr. Hernandez do that makes him guilty as an accomplice,
according to Mr. Crowley? He had the-motive, right? They were all in the
same gang, they all lost a friend. He had the opportunity, he was there, as
weIl,just like [the defendants]. And arguably had the ability, because he
was there with the gun, or the group was there with the gun.
34
No.31441-3-III
State v. Lopez
But it cuts both ways. Because if Mr. Hernandez is guilty, as they
say, for simply being there, these two are in the exact same boat. If Mr.
Hernandez is guilty as they say, and he's getting the benefit of a deal, that
may be true, but what that tells you is their clients are guilty and they have
just told you that. As a matter of law, they have told you their clients are at
a minimum accomplices to this murder.
12 RP at 159. Abraham's attorney objected to these statements on the grounds that
Benjamin's counsel had not made the alleged statements. The court overruled the
objection as argument. Benjamin maintains that these statements imply that he could be
found guilty as a matter of law for simply being at the scene of the crime, which is
insufficient to prove accomplice liability.
A defendant's presence at the scene of a crime is not enough to prove accomplice
liability, even if the defendant is fully aware of the ongoing criminal activity. In re
Welfare o/Wilson, 91 Wn.2d 487,491-92,588 P.2d 1161 (1979) (quoting State v. J-R
Distribs., Inc., 82 Wn.2d 584, 593, 512 P.2d 1049 (1973». The accused's presence at the
scene is sufficient only if the jury also finds that the defendant was present at the scene
and was ready to assist. Id. at 491. To prove that a defendant is ready to assist, the State
must be able to point to specific facts that tend to show that the defendant's presence at
the scene indicated that he was also ready to assist with the commission of the crime.
State v. Collins, 76 Wn. App. 496, 502, 886 P.2d 243 (1995).
35
No. 31441-3-II1
State v. Lopez
The first challenged argument is not improper. The prosecutor did not reduce the
burden of proof for accomplice liability. Benjamin takes the prosecutor's argument out of
context. The prosecutor did not say that mere presence was enough. To the contrary, he
argued that Abraham and Benjamin were ready to assist. The right standard is also found
in the jury instructions. Jury members are presumed to follow court instructions.
Thorgerson, 172 Wn.2d at 444.
Furthermore, the argument is supported by the record. Mr. Hernandez testified
that gang members were expected to have everyone's back, inferring that gang members
have an obligation to assist others. Specifically, Mr. Hernandez testified that Benjamin
gave driving directions and the men ended up at Mr. Beltran's home, and that Abraham
left the car at the time of the shooting. Based on this evidence the prosecutor could argue
that they were in the car to assist. The argument was not improper.
Benjamin also maintains that the prosecutor misstated his argument to imply that
his attorney admitted his client's guilt. He contends that he was prejudiced by this
misstatement because it led the jury to believe that defense counsel admitted his client's
guilt as an accomplice, and the court's decision to overrule his objection added an aura of
reliability to the misstatement.
36
No. 31441-3-111
State v. Lopez
The trial court correctly determined that the rebuttal statements were argument.
Defense counsel in closing argued that the evidence connected Mr. Hernandez to the
crime. Counsel maintained that the facts showed Mr. Hernandez was involved in the
murder but was not being held accountable because of his deal with the State. Defense
also argued that the same evidence that linked Benjamin to the crime linked Mr.
Hernandez.
Remember [the prosecutor] spent a great deal of time talking about
all the motive and he assured you he would go through his list of evidence,
and the litany of evidence that he had against Benjamin indicating motive.
He told you he would demonstrate all the motive. But if the motive applies
to him, the motive applied to him. It works the same way. He was in a
gang, he was in a gang. He wanted to advance, no, he wanted to advance.
Where is the proof? The proof is with me. I am lying to you. My name is
[Mr. Hernandez]. I don't want to go to prison.
12 RP at 124. The prosecutor's argument was an extension of defense counsel's
argument that Mr. Hernandez and Benjamin had equal motive. It did not imply that the
defense attorney thought his client was guilty. The prosecutor's statement was argument
and was not improper.
6. Step into shoes. Benjamin contends that the prosecutor committed misconduct
by encouraging the jury to step into the shoes of Benjamin and speculate as to his state of
mind. The prosecutor argued,
37
No. 31441-3-III
State v. Lopez
And every time you see his house, it's going to be a reminder of how the
rival gang killed your friend.
Think of how that would affect a 16-year-old or 17-year-old young
man's mind, gang member's mind. Every day he wants to go get a slice of
pizza and he has to be reminded about the rival gang member that murdered
his friend. That's a powerful motivator. Gang members have a duty to
back up their friends. They've lost a fellow gang member, and they had a
duty to do something about it.
Now, go back to that motive issue just briefly. Think about what that
must have been like for these young men to believe 18th Street killed their
friend, and here is one oftheir leaders on the main street in town for
everyone to see wearing his colors, full display. Folks, that would probably
drive anyone over the edge.
12 RP at 39-40, 42. Benjamin contends that through these statements, the prosecutor
testified to Benjamin's thought processes, argued facts not in the evidence, and tried to
int1ame the jury's passions and prejudices.
Statements that do no more than appeal to the passion or prejudice of the jury are
improper. Pierce, 169 Wn. App. at 552 (quoting State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759, 808,
147 P.3d 1201 (2006)). It is reversible error for a prosecutor to urge a jury to decide a
case based on evidence outside the record. Pierce, 169 Wn. App. at 553. Prosecutors
often use matters outside the record to appeal to ajury's passion; thus, the two rules are
closely related. Id. It is improper for a prosecutor to step into the shoes of a defendant
and represent his thought processes when those facts are not in evidence. Id. at 554.
38
No. 31441-3-111
State v. Lopez
In Pierce, the prosecutor stepped into the shoes of the defendant during closing
arguments by repeatedly presenting the thought process of the defendant from the first
person point of view. Id. at 553-54. He argued from the defendant's point of view, '''But
who do I know in Quilcene that has money? Well, the Yarrs. I know they got money.
And they have cash, because they paid me in cash. I can go up there and get some money.
But there's one problem: I don't want to work for it. ... He's not going to give it to me,
so I need a gun, but I don't know anybody that has a gun.'" Id. at 542. The court found
that these statements were calculated to portray the defendant as an impatient, amoral
drug addict who refused to work. Id. at 554. While the court found that the prosecutor
could have asked the jury to infer this view from the facts, the court held that the
prosecutor went beyond his wide latitude in drawing inferences from the evidence by
effectively testifying about the particular thoughts the defendant must have had in his
head, outside of the evidence. Id. at 555. The court held that the cumulative effect of this
and other improper statements objected to by the defendant affected the jury verdict
because the statements focused on the shocking nature of the crimes and invited the jury
to imagine the crimes happening to themselves. Id. at 556.
Here, while the prosecutor's statements peer into the minds of Abraham and
Benjamin, the prosecutor's statements do not rise to the level of impropriety as in Pierce.
39
No. 31441-3-II1
State v. Lopez
Much of the argument is supported by the evidence and did not require speculation. Mr.
Hernandez testified that Mr. Davalos's death made Abraham and Benjamin mad. Deputy
Harris and Mr. Hernandez testified about a gang member's duty to retaliate. Benjamin
testified that two of the people in the car became tense upon seeing Mr. Beltran. The
inferences in the argument were based on the evidence and supported the motive
advanced by the State. Even if improper, Benjamin fails to establish that these statements
could not have been cured by a limiting instruction. The statements were not shocking or
repetitive to the extent that they affected the jury's verdict.
7. Guilt by association. Benjamin contends that the prosecutor committed
misconduct when he implied that the jury should convict Benjamin as an accomplice
because his brother was gUilty. The prosecutor implied guilt by association by arguing
that a fellow gang member has an obligation to help. Additionally, the prosecutor said,
"[Benjamin and Abraham] wear almost identical clothing .... Now, a lot of people have
brothers, a lot of people like their brothers. But it's pretty rare for brothers to be so close
that they wear almost identical outfits. That's avery, very deep bond, and that is a
mirroring or copying of a younger brother and an older brother." 12 RP at 50. Benjamin
maintains that by making this statement, the prosecutor improperly assumed that the
40
No.31441-3-III
State v; Lopez
brothers wore the same style of clothing because of their bond, and that they would lie
and kill for each other.
This statement is not improper because it does not imply that Benjamin was guilty
because of his relationship with his brother or because they wore the same style of
clothing. Instead, the statement supports the State's theory that the brothers would do
anything for each other, including murder. The prosecutor attempts to show motive by
referencing evidence that proved the close relationship. This statement by the prosecutor
does not imply that the jury could forgo the instructions on accomplice liability and
convict because of the relationship.
8. Disparaging defense counsel. As another example of misconduct, Benjamin
contends that the prosecutor disparaged defense counsel by insinuating that defense
counsel believed his client was gUilty. The prosecutor discussed the powerful effect of
Mr. Hernandez's testimony in his rebuttal argument, stating, "[Defense counsel] called
[Mr. Hernandez] a liar 20 times. You can tell where an attorney is concerned about a case
based upon what they focus on. They are scared to death of the testimony of [Mr.]
Hernandez. Because it is the truth, it is consistent, it is corroborated by other witnesses
and other facts. They don't want you to believe him, because they know what it means."
12 RP at 160-6l. Benjamin also contends that through this statement, the prosecutor
41
No. 31441-3-II1
State v. Lopez
referenced facts about counsel's opinion that were not in the record and improperly
bolstered Mr. Hernandez's credibility by saying his testimony was the truth.
A prosecutor cannot make disparaging comments about defense counsel's role or
impugn defense counsel's integrity. Thorgerson, 172 Wn.2d at 451. However, it is not
improper for a prosecutor to argue that the evidence does not support the defense theory
of the case. Russell, 125 Wn.2d at 87. "Moreover, the prosecutor, as an advocate, is
entitled to make a fair response to the arguments of defense counsel." [d.
Discrediting Mr. Hernandez was crucial to the defense of Benjamin. It is true that
defense counsel repeatedly referred to Mr. Hernandez as a liar. The prosecutor was
permitted to respond to defense arguments. He also was permitted to show that consistent
evidence from other witnesses discredited defense arguments that Mr. Hernandez was
lying. Nothing in these arguments impugn defense counsel's role or integrity.
9. Unable to walk down the street. Benjamin contends that the prosecutor argued
facts not in the record during rebuttal when he said,
Now, that may be true that [Mr.] Hernandez isn't going to go to
prison for this. But that's not all he gets. Let's be right up front about this.
He gets to never, ever walk down the streets in the city of Quincy again.
Ever. He doesn't get to go to a movie theater or a pizza parlor in Quincy or
probably Ephrata or Moses Lake. He doesn't get to do those things
because, as they have testified, as evidence has shown, if you testify against
one of these guys, there's going to be a mark out on you. That's pretty
powerful disincentive to testify. You don't do that.
42
No. 31441-3-II1
State v. Lopez
12 RP at 162-63. Benjamin contends that the prosecutor stepped far beyond the
permissible limit of inferring facts from the record and appealed to the prejudices of the
Jury.
It is reversible error for a prosecutor to urge a jury to decide a case based on
evidence outside the record. Pierce, 169 Wn. App. at 553.
Benjamin is correct that there is no direct evidence in the record about what Mr.
Hernandez will be able to do now that he testified at the trial of a gang member.
However, the prosecutor's statements here are reasonable inferences from the record
designed to contradict the defense closing argument that Mr. Hernandez would not suffer
any consequences from his actions. Defense counsel argued during closing that Mr.
Hernandez got his life back in exchange for giving two hours of testimony at trial. On
rebuttal, the prosecutor responded by arguing that Mr. Hernandez did not get his life back
by testifying. Testimony at trial established that members who testify against other gang
members are beaten or killed. From this the prosecutor presented examples of how Mr.
Hernandez's life would be limited.
Benjamin contends that even if no individual error warrants reversal, cumulative
error denied him a fair trial. Errors that do not individually require reversal may still
require reversal if together they violate a defendant's right to a fair trial. State v. Jackson,
43
No. 31441-3-III
State v. Lopez
150 Wn. App. 877,889,209 P.3d 553 (2009). In this situation, there are not multiple
errors of prose cut oriaI misconduct. Accordingly, cumulative error does not apply.
Affirm.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to
RCW 2.06.040.
Lawrence-Berrey, J.
WE CONCUR:
44