Opinion ID: 2167211
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: improper testifying by the commonwealth

Text: Grundy argues that the Commonwealth's closing argument strayed from reasonable inferences based upon evidence contained within the record and improperly bolstered the Commonwealth's case when the prosecution explained why the other construction workers did not testify at trial. During voir dire, the prosecutor stated: Let me also tell you up front, Mr. Fitch will not be here today either. He had back surgery this past Wednesday. He could not travel and he could not be here today, so you're not going to be hearing from him. After Grundy made an issue with respect to the Commonwealth's failure to provide testimony from the other construction workers staying at the motel, the Commonwealth argued during closing arguments: She [defense counsel] wants to criticize why the other witnesses weren't here. I'll take responsibility for that. That's my decision. I could have subpoenaed Vince Meadows and I could have subpoenaed Jerry Smith. I know where they are. I've got their addresses and she does to. But I chose not to because they didn't have anything to add because they weren't in the room. They couldn't testify to who said what and who did what. They were next door separated by a wall. There was no point in dragging them down here and dragging this trial out by two or three hours to have them testify to some extraneous or irrelevant facts. I'll take responsibility for that. I put on the evidence that I thought was important and that you needed to hear to make a decision in this case. That's my job. Instead of assigning this argument its own subheading and including at the beginning of the argument a statement with reference to the record showing whether the issue was properly preserved for review and, if so, in what manner, [7] Grundy asserts this argument in two paragraphs in the middle of nineteen (19) pages of an unrelated argument. Our review of the record indicates that Grundy made no objection to either the statement during voir dire concerning Fitch's unavailability or the statements during closing argument, and we conclude that Grundy did not preserve this error for our review. As the Commonwealth introduced substantial evidence of Grundy's guilt, we find that these isolated statements did not cause Grundy to suffer manifest injustice sufficient to justify relief pursuant to RCr 10.26. [8]