Opinion ID: 2514440
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Prosecution's opening remarks

Text: Valdez argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct during jury selection by mentioning that there had been pretrial publicity, by referring to S.E. as a little boy, and by describing the circumstances preceding Valdez's arrest as a man hunt. In particular, during his opening remarks, the prosecutor described the crime, explaining: On that same day, there was a lot of press in this case because a little boy that's 12 years old got stabbed in the chest and he ran out of the apartment. He had a broken piece of the knife stuck in his chest still, and there was a little bit of a man hunt type of thing, so it was in the press. Eventually, [Valdez] is the one that was apprehended. (Emphases added.) Valdez suggests that these comments improperly inflamed the jury's passions against him. As the defense did not object, we apply plain-error review. The first two comments were not improper. Since the district court may properly permit inquiry of potential jurors regarding their possible exposure to pretrial publicity, [47] we conclude that the prosecutor did not engage in misconduct by alerting the jury to the pretrial publicity. Regarding the use of the descriptor little boy, we conclude that this was not prosecutorial misconduct because S.E. was indeed a child when he was stabbed. [48] In contrast, the reference to a man hunt was improper. A prosecutor may not blatantly attempt to inflame a jury. [49] We conclude that the use of the term man hunt was an attempt to inflame the jury because it was an inaccurate description of the arrest. The police merely called Valdez on his cellular phone and arrested him without resistance. Applying plain-error review, however, we conclude that the man hunt statement, standing alone, did not affect Valdez's substantial rights. But this statement contributed to the cumulative error in this case, which, as discussed below, requires reversal.