Cal: Admonition cured any error in opening statement comment about refusing to consent

Court’s [mild and virtually meaningless] admonition to jury in a death penalty case to disregard prosecutor’s opening statement comment that defendant refused to consent to a search that opening statements are not evidence was sufficient to cure any error. People v. Tate, 49 Cal. 4th 635, 234 P.3d 428, 112 Cal. Rptr. 3d 156 (2010)*:

Assuming, as defendant contends, that the prosecutor committed misconduct by commenting on defendant’s exercise of his Fourth Amendment right to refuse consent to a search and by arguing evidence that would be inadmissible at trial, the court’s response was sufficient to resolve the problem. The court immediately “asked” – i.e., politely admonished – the jury to disregard the argument, and later instructed the jury that “[s]tatements made by attorneys during the trial are not evidence.”

So lame.

Defendant was stopped [in a classic Terry stop] casing a check cashing store to rob it. An outstanding warrant was found. The search of the backpack was not justified by the search incident doctrine, but it was justified as an inventory under a lawful arrest. Motion to suppress denied. United States v. Matthews, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66925 (E.D. Pa. July 1, 2010).*