Opinion ID: 1940588
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: due process claim regarding prosecutor's remark

Text: Luna's final argument is that the prosecutor's statement violated his due process rights to a fair trial. When a prosecutor's comments are challenged on due process grounds upon application for habeas corpus relief, the question is whether the comments, even if improper, rise to the level of constitutional violations. Zemina, 438 F.Supp. at 464. While prosecutorial misconduct is not justified, a distinction nevertheless must be drawn between ordinary trial error of a prosecutor and ... egregious misconduct. Id. (quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 647, 94 S.Ct. 1868, 1873, 40 L.Ed.2d 431, 439 (1974)). Generally, prejudicial remarks made by a prosecutor to the jury do not give rise to denial of due process. Zemina, 438 F.Supp. at 465 (quoting Maggitt v. Wyrick, 533 F.2d 383, 387 (8th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 898, 97 S.Ct. 264, 50 L.Ed.2d 183 (1976)). As noted, the comments made in this case were not a statement of the prosecutor's belief in Luna's guilt, and was a reference to testimony elicited on cross-examination by defense counsel. It does not rise to the level of egregious misconduct necessary to obtain habeas corpus relief. See State v. Wood, supra . Affirmed. WUEST, C.J., and MORGAN, J., concur. SABERS, J., concurs in part and concurs in result in part. HENDERSON, J., dissents.