Opinion ID: 2029523
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Commenting on the Defendant's Failure to Call a Particular Witness

Text: Mayhorn argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct when she commented on his failure to call April as an alibi witness. Mayhorn did not object. Mayhorn and Ali had visited with April on their way into Moorhead on August 28, the day before Jordan's murder. During the state's cross-examination of Mayhorn, the following exchange occurred: Q: What's April's last name? A: I don't know her last name. Q: Never thought that it would be smart maybe to get your investigator to find out who April was and have her come in because she could help you with an alibi too, couldn't she? A: I mean Q: Never thought of that, huh? It is well-settled that a prosecutor may not comment on a defendant's failure to call a witness. State v. Fields, 306 Minn. 521, 522, 237 N.W.2d 634, 634 (1976). There are two reasons for this rule: (1) the comment suggests that the defendant bears some burden of proof; and (2) the comment suggests that the defendant did not call the witness because his or her testimony would be unfavorable. Id. at 522, 237 N.W.2d at 634. We conclude that the state committed misconduct in asking this question, and compounded the error by repeating it. [5]