Opinion ID: 27255
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Brazley’s Due Process Claim

Text: 10 Brazley asserts that the prosecutor’s improper opening statement, along with the trial court’s subsequent failure to issue a curative jury instruction, violated his due process rights.5 Thus, Brazley argues that the Louisiana Supreme Court’s denial of habeas relief on his due process claim was “contrary to” or an “unreasonable application of” federal law. In analyzing whether the prosecutor’s statement violated Brazley’s due process rights, “[t]he relevant question is whether the [statement] so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 (1986) (internal citation and quotation omitted). In order to rise to the level of a due process violation, the prosecutor’s statement must render the trial “fundamentally unfair.” Id. at 183. Brazley argues that the prosecutor’s reference to Brazley’s alleged statement to Gregory that Brazley had been “waiting” to kill Anthony was damaging because the statement suggests that the killing was premeditated murder rather than manslaughter.6 5 The prosecutor’s mention of Brazley’s inculpatory statement was improper because the statement was not supported by evidence presented during trial. See supra Part I. 6 The only theory of manslaughter relied on by Brazley at trial was the “heat of passion” theory. Under this theory, a homicide which would otherwise be murder can be downgraded to manslaughter if the homicide was “committed in sudden passion or heat of blood immediately caused by provocation sufficient to deprive an average person of his self-control and cool reflection.” LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 14:31 (West 2002). 11 Brazley thus asserts that the prosecutor’s error destroyed his manslaughter defense and rendered his trial fundamentally unfair. The State counters that, because the trial court excluded Brazley’s alleged statement to Gregory from evidence, the prosecutor’s error actually helped Brazley’s defense. The State asserts that Brazley’s manslaughter defense was unsuccessful because of the evidence introduced at trial, rather than the prosecutor’s improper opening statement. The State introduced substantial evidence at trial supporting a conviction for murder rather than manslaughter. First, the State established that, unlike in many manslaughter cases, Brazley was not provoked by discovering Anthony and Michelle in bed together. Rather, Brazley knocked down Michelle before entering her apartment to search for Anthony. Second, the State’s evidence showed that Brazley had the presence of mind to obtain a weapon from the kitchen before looking for Anthony in the bedroom. Brazley did not testify and did not present any defense witnesses. His entire defense consisted of the opening statement of defense counsel, which appears to argue for a manslaughter conviction (as distinguished from a first degree murder conviction), cross-examination of the State’s witnesses and the closing statement of his counsel (which was not transcribed). To the extent that the jury focused on the reference during the prosecutor’s opening statement to Brazley’s alleged statement, his manslaughter defense was clearly 12 undermined. But the evidence presented at trial shows little, if any, real support for a manslaughter defense. On this record, we cannot say that the Louisiana Supreme Court’s determination that Brazley’s trial was not rendered fundamentally unfair by the prosecutor’s improper opening statement, along with the trial court’s subsequent failure to issue a curative jury instruction, was “contrary to” or an “unreasonable application of” federal law.