Opinion ID: 1405581
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: Misconduct in the He Lies Argument

Text: ¶ 62 Defendant argues that the You know he lies argument, quoted in ¶ 55, was improper comment on the exercise of his Fifth Amendment right not to testify. Defendant did not object to this argument at trial, meaning that the claim is waived absent fundamental error. See Gendron, 168 Ariz. at 154, 812 P.2d at 627. Fundamental error is that which is clear, egregious, and curable only via a new trial. Id. at 155, 812 P.2d at 628. Fundamental error is  `error going to the foundation of the case, error that takes from defendant a right essential to his defense, and error of such magnitude that defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial.'  Bible, 175 Ariz. at 572, 858 P.2d at 1175 (quoting State v. Hunter, 142 Ariz. 88, 90, 688 P.2d 980, 982 (1984)). In determining whether error is fundamental, we look to the entire record and to the totality of the circumstances. See Bible, 175 Ariz. at 572, 858 P.2d at 1175; Gendron, 168 Ariz. at 155, 812 P.2d at 628. Considering those matters, which is to say, considering the cumulative effect of the prosecutorial misconduct that permeated this trial, we conclude that the improper comment on Defendant's failure to testify was fundamental error. ¶ 63 The prosecutor who comments on defendant's failure to testify violates both constitutional and statutory law. See Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 10; A.R.S. § 13-117(B) (1989); State v. Schrock, 149 Ariz. 433, 438, 719 P.2d 1049, 1054 (1986). Although an improper comment on defendant's failure to testify can be harmless error in some cases, see State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 297, 778 P.2d 1185, 1193 (1989), in other cases it can be fundamental error. See State v. Smith, 101 Ariz. 407, 410, 420 P.2d 278, 281 (1966) (citing Rutledge v. State, 41 Ariz. 48, 15 P.2d 255 (1932), for the proposition that fundamental error will be found if the general conduct of the prosecuting counsel was such that it must be presumed to have resulted in a miscarriage of justice). The error can be fundamental whether the comment is direct or indirect. See State v. Jordan, 80 Ariz. 193, 199, 294 P.2d 677, 681 (1956). ¶ 64 To be improper, the prosecutor's comments must be calculated to direct the jurors' attention to the defendant's exercise of his fifth amendment privilege. State v. McCutcheon, 159 Ariz. 44, 45, 764 P.2d 1103, 1104 (1988). [T]he statements must be examined in context to determine whether the jury would naturally and necessarily perceive them to be a comment on the failure of the defendant to testify. Schrock, 149 Ariz. at 438, 719 P.2d at 1054 (citing State v. Christensen, 129 Ariz. 32, 39, 628 P.2d 580, 587 (1981)). ¶ 65 The State argues that the he lies argument, when read in context, is proper comment on the basis for the expert's opinion regarding [Defendant's] mental illness and is not improper comment on Defendant's failure to testify. We doubt it. Just before the he lies argument, the prosecutor argued that you prove your case with witnesses who can be cross-examined, but all the jury had heard from Defendant was what he's told everybody else: I mean, after all, this is a jury trial, it is a search for the truth. You know, bring your witnesses in here, prove your case. You know, have them testify. Cross-examine them. Evaluate their demeanor when they are testifying, their manner while testifying. Any bias or prejudice they might have. And Mr. Cornell wants you to find this defendant not guilty by reason of insanity based on what the defendant himself is saying. I mean that's it, that's it, that's what the defendant himself is saying because there is no other evidence here to justify a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict, other than what the defendant is saying and what he's told everybody else in this case. All these other psychiatrists or psychologists, or whoever they may have been. ¶ 66 The prosecutor's argument that Dr. Potts was Defendant's mouthpiece is similar to the improper argument in State v. Trostle, 191 Ariz. 4, 16, 951 P.2d 869, 881 (1997). There, the prosecutor told the jury that only two people knew details about the crime:  `One is Jack Jewitt and the other one is sitting right here at the table asking you not to hold him accountable through his lawyer.'  Id. We held that the statement was an impermissible comment on defendant's failure to testify, but the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt. See id. In the present case, the evidence of Defendant's guilt was overwhelming, but the evidence of his sanity was not. Here, the evidence of Defendant's mental illness was overwhelming, the evidence of his insanity was substantial, and the State called no experts. The State did overwhelm the insanity defense in this case, true, but it did not do so with evidence; it did so with prosecutorial misconduct.