Opinion ID: 2621432
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: S.'s Testimony About How She Felt About Testifying

Text: ś 61 Upon examination of R.S., the prosecutor asked, how do you feel about having to testify in court and . . . be cross-examined? RRP at 2153. Defense counsel objected as to relevance, but the court overruled the objection. R.S. answered: You know, it's like I had stated. I've tried for two years to put this behind me, you know. I want to get on with my life. It's a horrific experience. I'm angry. I just want to get it over with. You know, it's like for two years, I tried to forget about it. And since this trial started, I've had to remember it. I've had sleepless nights again. I've gone through nightmares again. And I'm just â I'm upset. I'm really upset. And I just would like to get on with my life and, you know, put this behind me, you know. It's just one of those things that â I don't like having to recall all this stuff. I hate it. I hate having to remember it, you know. I hate having to go through all these feelings, you know, that I went through, you know. And it's just â I just â I just â I just â I wouldn't want my worst enemy to have to go through what I've gone â RRP at 2153-54. Defense counsel objected to the narrative form of the response and the court directed the prosecutor to move on. In closing, the prosecutor read back to the jury R.S.'s answer to this question. He then argued that R.S. would not have subjected herself to the trial process just to avenge a broken condom. The defense did not object. Gregory now argues that the prosecutor chilled the exercise of his federal and state constitutional rights to trial and to confrontation by asking how R.S. felt about cross-examination. In the alternative, Gregory argues that the question and the prosecutor's argument in closing improperly appealed to the jury's sympathy. ś 62 Comment on Constitutional Rights: This court has recognized that [t]he State can take no action which will unnecessarily `chill' or penalize the assertion of a constitutional right and the State may not draw adverse inferences from the exercise of a constitutional right. State v. Rupe, 101 Wash.2d 664, 705, 683 P.2d 571 (1984). The Court of Appeals has specifically concluded that the State may not invite the jury to draw a negative inference from the defendant's exercise of his right to cross-examine witnesses. State v. Jones, 71 Wash.App. 798, 811-12, 863 P.2d 85 (1993). However, both the United States Supreme Court and Washington courts have recognized that not all arguments touching upon a defendant's constitutional rights are impermissible comments on the exercise of those rights. See Portuondo v. Agard, 529 U.S. 61, 69, 120 S.Ct. 1119, 146 L.Ed.2d 47 (2000); State v. Miller, 110 Wash.App. 283, 284, 40 P.3d 692, review denied, 147 Wash.2d 1011, 56 P.3d 565 (2002). This court has characterized the relevant issue as whether the prosecutor manifestly intended the remarks to be a comment on that right. State v. Crane, 116 Wash.2d 315, 331, 804 P.2d 10 (1991). These cases suggest that so long as the focus of the questioning or argument is not upon the exercise of the constitutional right itself, the inquiry or argument does not infringe upon a constitutional right. Miller, 110 Wash.App. at 284, 40 P.3d 692. ś 63 Gregory acknowledges that this case came down to a credibility contest between Gregory and R.S. Gregory claimed that R.S. fabricated the rape story and pursued prosecution in revenge for his failure to pay $20 to compensate R.S. for a broken condom. The State sought to rebut this attack on R.S.'s credibility by showing that R.S. did not relish having to testify and be cross-examined. The State's theory was that it was unlikely that R.S. would have put herself through a trial to avenge a broken condom. The State did not specifically criticize the defense's cross-examination of R.S. or imply that Gregory should have spared her the unpleasantness of going through trial. ś 64 Gregory points to Jones, 71 Wash. App. at 811, 863 P.2d 85, in which the Court of Appeals concluded that the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights were violated when the prosecutor, in cross-examination and closing, commented that the defendant insisted upon staring at the seven-year-old victim as she testified. The prosecutor's arguments also suggested that the victim's courtroom contact with Jones was so traumatic that she could not return to court. Id. The Jones court held that this amounted to an improper comment on the defendant's right to confront his accuser. Id. at 811-12, 863 P.2d 85. While the State in Jones asserted that these arguments were offered to rebut Jones' contention that he loved the victim, the Jones court concluded that the prosecutor's argument invited the jury to draw a negative inference from the defendant's exercise of his right of confrontation. Id. ś 65 The Jones case is distinguishable from the facts of this case because in Jones the prosecutor's comments directly implicated Jones' constitutional right of confrontation. In contrast, the questioning and argument in this case focused on the credibility of the victim versus Gregory. See Crane, 116 Wash.2d at 331, 804 P.2d 10; Miller, 110 Wash.App. at 284, 40 P.3d 692. Gregory does not point to any case in which a general discussion of the emotional cost of victim testimony, offered to support the victim's credibility, amounted to an improper comment on the defendant's right to confrontation. ś 66 We conclude that the questioning and argument at issue here were not improper because they did not focus on Gregory's exercise of his constitutional rights to trial and to confront witnesses. Instead they focused on the credibility of the victim as compared to the credibility of the accused. To the extent that Gregory also argues that the prosecutor's reference to R.S.'s testimony in closing argument amounted to prosecutorial misconduct, that argument also fails. [24] ś 67 Appeal to the Jury's Sympathy: In the alternative, Gregory asserts that the introduction of the above testimony improperly appealed to the jury's sympathy. Mere appeals to the jury's passion or prejudice are improper. State v. Belgarde, 110 Wash.2d 504, 507-08, 755 P.2d 174 (1988). In State v. Claflin, 38 Wash.App. 847, 690 P.2d 1186 (1984), review denied, 103 Wash.2d 1014 (1985), the Court of Appeals condemned an argument where the prosecutor read a poem that poignantly reflected how the rape victim `probably felt.' Id. at 849-50, 690 P.2d 1186. However, as discussed above, the State's purpose in presenting this testimony was to rebut Gregory's argument that R.S.'s version of events was not credible. In addition, the jury instruction explaining that the jury should not let sympathy guide its decision would arguably have cured any sympathetic tendencies the jury may have had in this regard. Therefore, it cannot be said that the State improperly appealed to the jury's sympathy. [25]