Case Title: State v. Cohen

Citation: 

Docket Number: 87-329

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1991-04-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 87-329

                             APRIL TERM, 1991


State of Vermont                  }          APPEALED FROM:
                                  }
                                  }
     v.                           }          District Court of Vermont
                                  }          Unit No. 3, Orleans Circuit
                                  }
Bruce Cohen                       }
                                  }          DOCKET NO. 239-6-86 OsCr


             In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:

     Defendant appeals from a jury conviction for possession and cultivation
of marijuana.  He claims that plain error occurred when (1) the trial court
failed to provide curative instructions sua sponte after the prosecutor's
improper closing argument; (2) the prosecutor presented an improper theory
of the case during rebuttal; (3) the trial court denied his motion for a
new trial; and (4) the trial court gave inadequate jury instructions
relating to reasonable doubt.  He also contends that he was denied due
process during the sentencing hearing because he was not given timely notice
of the State's intent to present a witness.  We affirm.

                                    I.

     Defendant's first argument is that the prosecutor's argument was
improper and that, although he failed to make any objection to the
challenged language at trial, the trial court should have taken action sua
sponte.  In an effort to bolster his claim, he makes separate claims about
various statements of the prosecutor and argues that cumulatively, if not
individually, they deprived him of a fair trial. (FN1)

    We noted in State v. Francis, 151 Vt. 296, 300, 561 A.2d 392, 395
(1989), that the question of the propriety of an attorney's argument should
be addressed to the discretion of the trial court.  This is because the
trial court, which has observed the entire trial and the demeanor of the
attorneys, can better gauge the impact of the allegedly prejudicial language
than an appellate court reviewing a cold record.  Moreover, an objection
permits the court to take corrective action where appropriate.  But where a
defendant has not objected to allegedly improper language, the trial court
is deprived of an opportunity to correct and we are deprived of the trial
court's views on the question.

     Failure to enforce defense counsel's obligation to object to mistakes
at trial would have the unsalutary effect of encouraging attorneys "'to
remain silent about some fault on the part of the trial court . . . and so,
without giving it a chance to correct the situation, arm themselves with
ground for reversal if the verdict should go against them.'"  State v. Ross,
152 Vt. 462, 470, 568 A.2d 335, 340 (1989)(quoting State v. Kasper, 137 Vt.
184, 190-91,