Opinion ID: 2381439
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Prosecutorial Misconduct: Improper Closing Argument

Text: Ashley contends the State's closing argument prejudiced his ability to receive a fair trial because it contained the prosecutor's personal opinion and was based on facts not introduced in evidence. We disagree. The prosecutor's remarks were forceful but fair comments on the evidence and did not prejudice Ashley's right to a fair trial. Because Ashley neither objected to the State's argument nor moved for a mistrial as a result of the presently challenged portions of the argument, we review only for obvious error. M.R.Crim.P. 52(b). [2] Obvious error is error so highly prejudicial it virtually deprives the defendant of a fundamentally fair trial. State v. Corrieri, 654 A.2d 419, 420 (Me.1995). To evaluate the propriety of a prosecutor's closing argument, we rely on Maine Bar Rule 3.7(e)(2) as one convenient gauge. See, e.g., Corrieri, 654 A.2d at 421; State v. Weisbrode, 653 A.2d 411, 416 (Me.1995); State v. Comer, 644 A.2d 7, 9 (Me.1994); State v. Casella, 632 A.2d 121, 122 (Me.1993). While the Bar Rules apply to all attorneys, they apply with particular force to prosecutors because of their status as the community's representatives. Casella, 632 A.2d at 122 (quoting State v. Smith, 456 A.2d 16, 18 (Me.1983)). When we determine that the challenged statements exceed the bounds of acceptable conduct, we evaluate the misconduct to determine whether the prosecutor's misconduct jeopardized the defendant's right to a fair trial.
In closing argument the State sought to downplay inconsistencies in the two victims' testimony by drawing the jury's attention to the similarities in their accounts of the assaults and by emphasizing the honest demeanor of one of the victims while she testified. Ashley contends that these remarks were improper prosecutorial comment on the credibility of a witness. We have repeatedly stated it is improper for a prosecuting attorney to assert an opinion concerning the credibility of a witness. See, e.g., Weisbrode, 653 A.2d at 415-16. Conversely, we also repeatedly have upheld the prosecutor's ability to argue vigorously for any position, conclusion, or inference supported by the evidence. Id. (stating that prosecutor may present an analysis of the evidence with vigor and zeal). The central issue, therefore, when a defendant contends that the prosecutor injected personal opinion into closing argument, is whether the challenged comment reflects an improper personal opinion or is an argument fairly based on the evidence. State v. Moontri, 649 A.2d 315, 317 (Me.1994) (citing State v. Pendexter, 495 A.2d 1241 (Me.1985)). In this case, although varying in some minor details, each victim's testimony was strikingly similar to that of the other with respect to the essential aspects of the assault. Additionally, the prosecutor's request that the jury assess the credibility of one of the victims in light of her demeanor did not bolster improperly the victim's credibility but rather merely reminded jurors they could give more weight to the testimony of a witness they perceived as truthful. The prosecutor's remarks did nothing more than argue on his analysis of the evidence, for [a] position or conclusion with respect to the matters stated therein. Me. Bar R. 3.7(e)(2)(v).
Ashley also contends that the prosecutor attempted to use closing argument to place before the jury additional and unsworn evidence concerning the general prevalence of inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses at the trial and the psychological impact of sexual abuse on adolescents. Contrary to Ashley's contention, the prosecutor's remarks were proper argument. Attorneys must limit argument to the issues of the case, the applicable law, pertinent evidence, and such legitimate inference as may properly be drawn. State v. Viger, 392 A.2d 1080, 1084 (Me.1978). See also Me.Bar R. 3.7(e)(2)(iv) (In appearing in a professional capacity before a tribunal, a lawyer shall not: ... (iv) Assert personal knowledge of the facts at issue....). As with assertions of personal opinion, this limitation applies to the prosecutor with special force because the prosecutor's position, with its inevitable asset of tremendous credibility, makes of a prosecutor a powerful witness. See State v. Smith, 456 A.2d at 18. The prosecutor's comments in this case, however, did not seek to impart to the jury special knowledge gleaned by the prosecutor as a result of his experience, but rather appealed to the jury's common sense and experience. It is not beyond the pale of general experience that two persons who have experienced the same event may describe it differently, nor does it exceed the confines of common sense that an adolescent who has been sexually victimized may be reluctant to report the abuse. During closing argument, the State may appeal to the jury's common sense and experience without crossing the line into prohibited argument. Moontri, 649 A.2d at 315 (citations omitted). See also State v. Rubino, 564 A.2d 59, 60 (Me.1989) (prosecutor's argument discussing sexual assault victim's inability to remember exact date of assault merely appealed to jury's common sense). We conclude that the prosecutorial comments challenged by Ashley were not improper advocacy and did not prejudice Ashley's right to a fair trial.