People v. Cowan, 214 Cal. Rptr. 3d 576

Background

Defendant Ronald J. Cowan was convicted by a jury of multiple sexual crimes against a young child (sodomy, oral copulation, lewd acts) and sentenced to 65 years to life.
The alleged victim A.J., then a young child, made statements to caregivers and to a DA investigator; recorded interviews and trial testimony included sexualized descriptions; medical exam showed no physical findings (consistency with child-sex-abuse exams explained by expert).
Cowan had frequent unsupervised contact with A.J., gave gifts, sought visits after A.J. entered foster care; some witnesses testified to Cowan’s good character and the absence of child pornography on his computers.
In rebuttal closing the prosecutor told jurors the presumption of innocence “is over” after charges are read and urged jurors to decide “just like you make decisions a hundred times a day,” giving a misleading definition of beyond a reasonable doubt.
The trial court had given correct reasonable-doubt instructions before closing and told jurors to follow the court’s instructions; the court overruled an in-trial objection that the prosecutor misstated the law, merely calling argument and reminding jurors of instructions.
On appeal the Court of Appeal (after direction from the Supreme Court to reconsider in light of People v. Centeno) reversed, holding the prosecutor’s rebuttal misstatement of the presumption of innocence and burden of proof was misconduct that prejudiced the trial and warranted reversal.

Issues

Issue	People’s Argument	Cowan’s Argument	Held
Whether prosecutor’s statement that the presumption of innocence ends after charges are read was misconduct	The prosecutor’s remarks were permissible argument comparable to Booker and Cortez and did not shift burden	Statement was a false legal statement that removed the presumption during trial, reducing the People’s burden	Misconduct: the statement was a gross misstatement of law and prejudicial; reversal required
Whether prosecutor’s analogy that jurors decide "a hundred times a day" and other everyday-life explanations of reasonable doubt were improper	Such analogies are permissible rhetorical explanations of reasoned decisionmaking	Everyday-life analogies improperly minimize the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard	For that comment, defendant failed to object; any harm would have been cured by admonition, so no independent reversal on that basis
Whether the trial court’s prior correct instructions cured prosecutorial misstatements	Jury instructions and court admonitions sufficiently explained law; prosecutor’s remarks were just argument	The prosecutor’s misstatement was the last and controlling statement jurors heard; instructions did not erase prejudice	The court’s earlier instructions were not enough to cure the harm from the prosecutor’s final misstatement
Whether the error was harmless or requires reversal	Evidence was strong; any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	Prosecutor’s misconduct likely affected jurors’ application of burden; reversal required	Reversal: misconduct was prejudicial under Centeno and required vacatur of conviction

Key Cases Cited

People v. Centeno, 60 Cal.4th 659 (2014) (prosecutorial aids/arguments that misstate or oversimplify reasonable doubt can be misconduct requiring reversal)
People v. Booker, 51 Cal.4th 141 (2011) (some prosecutorial remarks about presumption of innocence are tolerated when argument accurately reflects the evidence)
People v. Cortez, 63 Cal.4th 101 (2016) (context can render an incomplete or imprecise statement about reasonable doubt nonprejudicial)
People v. Marshall, 13 Cal.4th 799 (1996) (prosecutor may not reduce the People’s burden of proof or misstate the law)
People v. Hill, 17 Cal.4th 800 (1998) (prosecutorial misconduct violates due process when so egregious it infects the trial)
People v. Cole, 33 Cal.4th 1158 (2004) (review asks whether jury likely construed challenged remarks in an objectionable way)
People v. Sapp, 31 Cal.4th 240 (2003) (failure to object limits review of prosecutorial misconduct unless admonition would not have cured harm)