Opinion ID: 2365208
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the prosecutor commit misconduct by referring to Carter as the black guy and Moody as the white guy?

Text: [¶ 4] Carter claims that the prosecutor committed misconduct by repeatedly referring during the trial to him as the black guy and to Moody as the white guy. Carter further claims that these comments deprived him of a fair trial and an impartial jury guaranteed to him by principles of due process and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution as applied to the states through application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Regarding claims of prosecutorial misconduct, we have said the following: Claims of prosecutorial misconduct are settled in reference to the entire record and hinge on whether a defendant's case has been so prejudiced that the defendant did not have a fair trial. Arevalo v. State, 939 P.2d 228, 230 (Wyo.1997). The propriety of a closing argument is considered in the context of the entire argument. Id. Reversal is warranted when a reasonable possibility exists that, absent the error, the appellant may have enjoyed a more favorable verdict. Id. Campbell v. State, 999 P.2d 649, 663 (Wyo. 2000). No objection was made at trial to the alleged improper comments by the prosecutor, so we apply a plain error analysis. Id. Accordingly, in order for Carter to prevail on appeal, he must demonstrate that the record clearly shows an error that transgressed a clear and unequivocal rule of law which adversely affected a substantial right. Reversal of a conviction on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct, which was not challenged in the trial court, is appropriate only when there is a substantial risk of miscarriage of justice. Burton v. State, 2002 WY 71, ¶ 13, 46 P.3d 309, 314 (Wyo.2002) (internal quotations and citations omitted). [¶ 5] As support for his contention that the prosecutor committed misconduct, Carter points to numerous times throughout the trial in which the prosecutor and witnesses made reference to him as the black guy and Moody as the white guy. On appeal, the State does not contest the fact that the record clearly reflects the prosecutor's repeated use of the phrases black guy and white guy throughout the trial. [¶ 6] Having satisfied the first prong of the plain error test  that the record clearly reflects the alleged error  we turn to the second prong to determine whether the alleged error violated a clear and unequivocal rule of law. Carter points to numerous cases to support his contention that the prosecutor, by referring to him as the black guy and Moody as the white guy, violated a clear and unequivocal rule of law prohibiting such comments. The consistent theme throughout the cases cited by Carter, and others dealing with this particular issue, is the desire to remove illegitimate references to race from judicial proceedings to the fullest extent possible. See State v. Garrett, 42 Conn.App. 507, 681 A.2d 362, 367-68 (1996) (prosecutor's comment in closing argument telling the jury not to let the defendant hide behind his blackness, which was in response to defendant claiming he was being prosecuted for being black, was error, but not prejudicial); Reynolds v. State, 580 So.2d 254, 255-57 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1st Dist.1991) (In a sexual battery case involving black defendant and white victim, prosecutor's comments, such as asking jury to think about how embarrassing it is for an 18-year old white girl from Crestview to admit she was raped by a black man, were held to have improperly injected race into the trial and violated defendant's right to fair trial.); State v. Varner, 643 N.W.2d 298, 302-05 (Minn.2002) (statement made by white juror to another juror regarding the area where crime was committed as being the miracle mile because it was a miracle if a white person could walk through that area without being beaten or robbed held improper and prejudicial); and Clark v. State, 102 Miss. 768, 59 So. 887, 888 (1912) (denial of black defendant's request for instruction stating that he is entitled to be tried by the same rules of evidence and law as if he were a white man upheld). We continue to recognize that core principle as a prerequisite to a fair trial, but we also follow the reasoning found in this Court's jurisprudence, and others, which recognize legitimate exceptions to the general principle that race should be excluded to the fullest extent possible. See Campbell, 999 P.2d at 663 (prosecutor's references to victim being mixed race and defendant's boyfriend being white were legitimate grounds for the use of race as it established motive for abuse of the child); State v. Hill, 105 N.C.App. 489, 414 S.E.2d 73, 76-77 (1992) (Use of defendant's and victim's skin color as a means of identification was not error and did not cause the issue of race to improperly `dominate the defendant's trial.'); Lee v. State, 560 P.2d 226, 233 (Okla.Crim.App.1977) (prosecutor's request for witness to provide description of robbers and witness's response using their race as descriptions was legitimate and proper). [¶ 7] Turning to the present case, we find that the best way to demonstrate how the phrases white guy and black guy were used throughout the trial is to provide samples of testimony. For brevity's sake, we are not quoting every portion of the record that contains those phrases, but we have reviewed the entire record and determined that the following samples are representative of the context and purpose for which the phrases were used throughout the remainder of the unquoted portions of the record. For instance, the following colloquy between the prosecutor and one of the witnesses, who did not know the names of Carter or Moody, shows that the witness described them based, in part, on race when asked to identify the parties involved in the fight. This colloquy demonstrates the prosecutor's attempts to use descriptive features that other witnesses relied on to identify Carter and Moody, such as the color of Carter's shirt and the fact that Moody was not wearing a shirt, in order to make all of the witnesses' testimony consistent and clear to the jury. Q. Okay. How many people were down by the trash cans? A. There was [sic] two, maybe three people. Q. Okay. What were they doing? A. Arguing. Q. Okay. Describe the people that are arguing for me. What do they look like? A. One person was black; the other person was a heavy-set white person. Q. Okay. Thethe white guy, does he have a shirt on? A. No. Q. Okay. The black guy, does he have a shirt on? A. Yes. Q. How would you describe that shirt? A. I am sorry. I don't remember Q. Okay. A. what color. Q. Do you remember describing it to the police as a tan shirt with a big stripe on it? A. Yes. [¶ 8] While some witnesses used race to identify Moody and Carter, several witnesses who testified, including people who witnessed the murder and police officers who were first on the scene, knew the names of Moody and Carter and could identify them without the need to mention their respective race. For example, when the State questioned a witness who knew both Carter and Moody, the prosecutor attempted to tie that witness's testimony to what previous witnesses had testified: Q. Who were thewho were the individuals that were arguing as you witnessed that standing at the end of the balcony? A. Jeff and John. Q. Okay. Jeff meaning Mr. Carter? A. Yes. Q. And John meaning Mr. Moody? A. Yes. .... Q. Okay. And then Renee comes into the picture; what does she do? A. She starts hitting Moody. Q. She starts hitting Mr. Moody? A. Yeah. Q. Okay. Now, did you notice ... what kind of clothing that Mr. Moody was wearing at that time? A. He didn't have no shirt on. During yet another witness's testimonya witness who knew Carter, but did not know Moodythe following exchange occurred between her and the prosecutor: Q. Okay. And do you knowin the time that you lived here, did you ever become acquainted with the defendant, Jeff Carter? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. Can you just tell us how it was that you met Mr. Carter? A. (No response.) Q. Maybe I'll ask you this, it might help to clarify: How long have you known Mr. Carter? A. Since May. Q. May of this year? A. Yes, Sir. .... Q. Okay. Now ... did you have occasion, also, to ever meet a man by the name of John Shane Moody? A. No, sir. Q. Did you ever have occasion to meet a man by the name of Shane? A. No, sir. Q. Okay. Do you recall an incident at all in a laundromat involving the defendant Jeff Carter and another man? A. Yes, sir. .... Q. Okay. And you were there visiting another friend? A. Yeah, I was just sitting there. Q. Okay. And at some point, Mr. Carter showed up? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. Now, at some point did another gentleman show up? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. What happened when this otherhow would you describe this other gentleman? A. He was a white man to me at that time. Q. Okay. A. And he told Q. Did you know his name? A. No, sir, at the time I didn't. Q. Okay. He's a white man. Can you describe him for us, please? A. He's about my height and had brown hair, and he didn't have a shirt on. He had some shorts, and he camed [sic] up and he approached Jeff.... [¶ 9] We also find relevant the fact that Carter's trial counsel also used race as a means of description when questioning witnesses unfamiliar with Carter or Moody's names. One such instance is as follows: Q. Where was Mr. Carter when you sawwhen you came out and looked down in the middle of the street? A. He was standing on the left side of the gentleman in front of him. Q. Okay. This left side of A. This side. Q. Would be of the white guy with no shirt? A. Yes. .... Q. Okay. And so there werewas it three individuals facing towards him? A. Well, the gentleman thator gentleman or femaleI couldn't tell you if it was male or female standing behind the tree. I don't know where they were facing. But the two that I could clearly see was facing the white man. [¶ 10] Although Carter is correct that there is an abundant use of the phrases white guy and black guy throughout the record, we cannot say that the use of those phrases was for anything other than the legitimate purpose of describing the actors involved, and such use was not intended to inflame the jury or prejudice Carter. Rather, the phrases were used as a means to describe the actors involved, including the defendant and victim. The race of the defendant and victim was obvious to the jury and the use of those phrases told them nothing they did not already know from their own courtroom observations. See State v. Kirk, 205 Kan. 681, 472 P.2d 237, 239, 240 (1970) (The prosecutor's question to witness as to whether witness knew the young colored gentleman sitting at the table was not a violation of defendant's substantive right to a fair trial as [t]he jury was told nothing it did not already know from courtroom observation, and from evidence properly admitted.). Because we cannot say that the prosecutor's use of the phrases black guy and white guy as a means of describing the defendant and the victim violated any clear and unequivocal rule of law, Carter has failed to prove plain error. [¶ 11] Carter also claims that it was error to admit into evidence and that he was prejudiced by the admission into evidence of his videotaped interrogation where the detectives make several references to the victim as the white guy. Specifically, Carter takes exception to a portion of the video where one of the detectives, in the course of trying to get Carter to tell them what happened, offers the following possible explanation: Some white guy that thought he was gonna get the better of you. Why don't you sit up here and talk to us. Carter did not object to this at trial and therefore we review this claim of error under plain error. Because the video clearly depicts the scene about which Carter complains, the first prong of plain error is satisfied. Regarding the second and third prongs of the plain error analysisthat the prosecutor violated a clear and unequivocal rule of law and that it adversely affected a substantial rightwe note that this is not a situation where the prosecutor was interjecting race into the trial in an attempt to prejudice or disparage Carter, but rather these were comments made in the course of the detectives' investigation. One of the witnesses testified that he heard the defendant say, You don't mess with a black man, he'll stick you or shoot you. Apparently, the detectives were following up on the possibility of race as a possible motive for the crime. Furthermore, this particular comment made up a small portion of the interrogation video and overall trial. See Garrett, 681 A.2d at 368 (Improper racial comments made by prosecutor did not warrant reversal because they were restricted to a very brief segment of the state's entire closing argument .... and did not pervade the entire trial.). Additionally, the evidence of Carter's guilt was quite strong, especially considering the number of witnesses who testified to seeing Carter be the aggressor in the fight and then observing Carter stab Moody. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that playing that portion of the video was error, or that it violated Carter's substantial rights. Accordingly, Carter has failed to prove plain error.