Opinion ID: 521478
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Questioning Concerning Percodan Pills

Text: 18 Barrera claims that the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct in questioning a customs inspector about the legality of her possessing percodan pills, and also in questioning her and other witnesses about the pills in a manner designed to emphasize their illegality. This contention fails. 19 This court condemns prosecutorial behavior as misconduct only when, considered in the context of the entire trial, the behavior affected the jury's ability to judge the evidence fairly. Endicott, 803 F.2d at 513. 20 Although an inspector did testify that he believed Barrera's possession of the pills was illegal, the district court promptly sustained Barrera's objection and instructed the jury to disregard the statement. Any prejudice resulting from the statement was cured by the court's prompt instruction. See Endicott, 803 F.2d at 513. 21 Other questions about the pills clearly were proper. The prosecutor questioned two witnesses about the pills before the inspector commented on their illegality. Thus, those questions could not have emphasized the pills' illegality. When the prosecutor questioned Barrera following the inspector's testimony, she made no mention of the pills' illegality. Rather, she confronted Barrera with the fact that pills found in her purse were the same as those found in the truck near the hidden compartment, and elicited from her an admission that she had been in that part of the truck. Because that questioning did not affect the jury's ability to judge the evidence fairly, the prosecutor did not engage in misconduct. See Endicott, 803 F.2d at 513.