Peyer’s Appeal in Murder of Knott Is Denied : The Law: A defense attorney contends that the prosecution erred during the trial that convicted CHP officer of murder, but the court disagrees.

Craig Peyer’s first-degree murder conviction was upheld Wednesday by the 4th District Court of Appeal in San Diego, which rejected every challenge raised by the defense.

The court issued its ruling in a 65-page opinion that addressed 10 issues raised by Peyer’s attorney in a lengthy appeal of his June 22, 1988, conviction. Peyer, 40, was convicted of killing Cara Knott, 20, on the night of Dec. 27, 1986, near the Mercy Road off-ramp from Interstate 15. His first trial ended in a hung jury in February, 1988.

Peyer’s conviction ended a 13-year career as a California Highway Patrol officer. He is the first CHP officer convicted of murder while on duty and is serving a 25-year-to-life sentence in state prison.

Peyer’s father, Harold Peyer, declined to comment on the court’s ruling. Harold Peyer said that Karen Peyer, Craig Peyer’s wife, also had no comment.

In the court’s written opinion, the justices dismissed an argument by Peyer’s attorney, Christopher J. Schatz, that prosecutor Paul Pfingst was guilty of misconduct in his closing argument when he portrayed Peyer as a “predator” with an “appetite” for young women like Knott.

During the trial, Pfingst used the testimony of 31 young women, who said they were stopped at night by Peyer on the same darkened off-ramp where Knott was killed.

Schatz argued that the women’s testimony should not have been allowed by Superior Court Judge Richard Huffman, who is now a 4th District Court of Appeal justice. Huffman did not participate in the appellate ruling.

The court said the women’s testimony was proper because it showed “distinctive similarities between the individuals who were pulled over . . . and Knott.” The ruling further noted that, “like Knott, the others were apparently young women driving alone.”

But, although refusing to reverse Peyer’s conviction on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct, the justices nevertheless said that Pfingst’s portrayal of the former CHP officer bordered on misconduct. The court specifically noted Pfingst’s “predator language” and “appetite analysis,” but dismissed them as “only a small part” of Pfingst’s argument.

Pfingst’s “argument approaches misconduct. . . . Yet, when viewed in context, this argument is directed to examining the potentially explosive situation that existed in the Mercy Road stops rather than examining Peyer’s character,” said the court in its written decision.

While addressing the potential for violence in the Mercy Road stops, the court also acknowledged earlier in its opinion that “none of these women who were stopped by Peyer were physically harmed or threatened.” The justices also wrote that “several described Peyer as friendly or professional.”

The court said that Pfingst also came close to misconduct in another area of his closing argument when he drew the jury’s attention to Peyer’s failure to testify during the trial. Defendants have a constitutional right not to testify.

Pfingst prefaced many of his remarks with “I kept waiting,” or “Weren’t you waiting,” when telling jurors that the defense failed to explain Peyer’s whereabouts at the time of the killing and scratches on his face, which the prosecution alleged were administered by Knott when she fought off her attacker.

Robert Grimes, Peyer’s trial attorney, asked Huffman to declare a mistrial because, he alleged, Pfingst improperly commented on Peyer’s failure to testify.

“There was a danger the jury could misinterpret the prosecutor’s argument as one directing them to consider Peyer’s failure to testify as evidence of guilt. . . . While the prosecutor’s conduct here approached misconduct, and we think such legal brinkmanship should be discouraged, reversal is not required because . . . any improper inference was negated by the (trial) court’s instruction to the jury,” said the court’s ruling.

In his instructions to the jury, Huffman cautioned jurors to consider Pfingst’s comments only to the degree that the defense failed to introduce evidence or “logical witnesses” to counter evidence and testimony from witnesses presented by the prosecution.

The appellate court also allowed the testimony of the young women stopped by Peyer because it showed Peyer’s “pattern of prior conduct” and supported the prosecution’s theory that it was Peyer who was driving a police cruiser seen pulling over Knott’s car at the Mercy Road off-ramp and later seen leaving the area.

Tracy Koening and her husband, Scott, testified that they saw a police car stop Knott’s car at the off-ramp, as the three vehicles were traveling south on Interstate 15. Duane and Ann Clinkscales testified that they saw a black-and-white police car speed away from the off-ramp area several minutes later. The Clinkscaleses were inside a limousine that encountered mechanical problems and was parked at the bottom of the off-ramp.

Peyer’s attorney argued for reversal of the conviction on grounds that Grimes was not allowed to impeach the Koenings’ testimony. Grimes attempted to question Tracy Koening about a prior misdemeanor conviction on a single count of embezzlement and cast doubt on her truthfulness.

Huffman did not allow Grimes to question Koening about her criminal conviction. Instead, Huffman said there was other evidence available for Grimes to use to impeach Koening. Huffman noted that she had given inconsistent statements to authorities and that her testimony differed from that of her husband’s and from statements given by her father to investigators.

“Even if the court erred in excluding the evidence (of Koening’s embezzlement conviction), we find the error harmless in light of the admission of other evidence which impeached Koening,” said the court’s ruling.

The court also rejected a claim by Peyer’s attorney that his conviction should be reversed because Peyer should have been granted a change of venue necessitated by massive pretrial publicity. This argument was rejected by the court, which noted that Grimes withdrew a motion for a change of venue.

Attorneys Grimes and Schatz did not return phone calls to their offices.