Opinion ID: 1881018
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in allowing the prosecutor to refer to the testimony of the arresting officer in his closing statement.

Text: ¶ 24. During the State's closing argument, the following took place: He's said we don't want to talk about Clifford Labranche. We do. Clifford Labranche was arrested and he's awaiting trial just like Vernell Carpenter. He was arrested because he was bleeding and there was blood found at the scene. It doesn't take a super sleuth or DNA or Quincy, MD to figure out you've got blood at the scene, you find him standing around bloody, he's a suspect also. But what they don't want you to realize is when he was arrested and Clifford was first seen, he asked Vernell, Vernell, who is that. And Vernell said, oh, that's Clifford Labranche. BY MR. RUNDLETT: Object, your Honor. BY MR. ALEXANDER: It's in evidence, your Honor. BY MR. RUNDLETT: I think you've already ruled on that in the pretrial motion. BY MR. ALEXANDER: No BY THE COURT: Well, the jury heardI'm going to sustain at this point. BY MR. ALEXANDER: Your Honor, if I may, Officer Haymer testified about that from the stand. BY MR. RUNDLETT: And I objected. BY MR. ALEXANDER: He objected and you overruled his objection. Then he made a motion for a mistrial and you overruled. BY THE COURT: The jury heard whatever was said. BY MR. RUNDLETT: Move to instruct them to disregard that statement. BY MR. ALEXANDER: What's the Court's ruling on that, your Honor, because the jury did hear it in evidence? BY THE COURT: We would have to go back to the transcript and it would take a long time to find it. So the jury has already heard it. The jury will have that to make a decision based on what they heard. The Court is not going to comment on it. ¶ 25. The prosecutor's closing argument further compounded the problem. After repeating Carpenter's improperly obtained identification of Labranche, the prosecutor argued to the jury the very point the trial court had already deemed inadmissible. The prosecutor linked the physical evidence connecting Labranche to the crime to Carpenter when he argued: But what they don't want you to realize is when he was arrested and Clifford was first seen, he asked Vernell, Vernell, who is that. And Vernell said, oh, that's Clifford Labranche. ¶ 26. As stated, supra, allowing the officer to testify about the identification was not harmless error, and the prosecutor's reference in closing argument to the identification simply amplified the error and its prejudicial effect.