Opinion ID: 1794408
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Cross-examination of Mitigation Witnesses

Text: Appellant next contends that the cross-examination of his mitigation witnesses was improper and that the comments of the prosecutor during closing argument denied him due process. A careful examination of the record does not support this argument. Here, the questioning and comments by the prosecutor did not exceed that authorized by Payne v. Tennessee, [16] on which Appellant relies. Further, the prosecutorial limits regarding victim impact evidence enunciated by this Court in Bowling v. Commonwealth [17] were observed. The prosecutor's conduct was not improper and did not make the jury more likely to impose a death sentence. Specifically, Appellant contends that the prosecutor sought to prejudice the jury by pointing out the fact that he had exercised his right to a jury trial. During cross-examination of Appellant's sister, the prosecutor asked, [Y]our brother exercised his right to go to trial on the murder charge that he was facing involving Mrs. Williamson? Didn't he? Counsel for Appellant objected and the trial court sustained the objection but denied the motion for a mistrial. A mistrial is appropriate only when there is a fundamental defect in the proceedings which will result in a manifest injustice. [18] Appellant had already been found guilty, a fact known to the jury, and the inquiry was not anything novel. Thus, there was no prejudice to Appellant. Appellant argues that there was misconduct on the part of the prosecutor in cross-examining another defense witness when he asked her if she had e-mailed Appellant or had checked his web site. He contends this was improper comment on the amenities in prison. We find this argument to be without merit. The incident had no possible opportunity to inflame the jury, particularly in view of the widespread use of e-mail. In closing argument, the Commonwealth called Appellant evil, an animal and a wolf. We reiterate our previous condemnation of such improper attacks. [19] There is no place in a courtroom for such personal vilification of a defendant, no matter how vile the charges against him. We strongly caution prosecutors throughout this Commonwealth to refrain from such personal attacks against defendants. However, we are not convinced that the improper comments necessitate reversal given the strong evidence arrayed against Appellant. Such comments did not render Appellant's entire trial fundamentally unfair. [20] Finally, we disagree with Appellant's argument that the prosecutor improperly cajoled the jury with an appeal to community responsibility. On the contrary, the prosecutor merely stated the obviously correct fact that the jurors represented the citizens of Kenton County.