Opinion ID: 2508188
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 25

Heading: failure to object to prosecuting attorney's closing argument

Text: ISSUE (6). Whether defense counsel's decision not to object to statements by the prosecutor during closing argument constituted deficient performance. Petitioner argues that his defense attorneys were ineffective because they did not object during the prosecutor's closing argument in the guilt phase. [207] He contends that during summation, the prosecuting attorney made various improper statements and comments intended to appeal to the passions of the jury. Petitioner lists several excerpts of alleged improper comments. However, except in two instances, he does not state any reasons why the statements were improper. According to Petitioner, his counsel should have objected to the prosecutor's claim that the victim's blood was found on Petitioner's shoe because that comment was unsupported by the evidence. [208] He also argues that his attorney should have objected when the State suggested to the jury that Petitioner ought to have a label with a skull and crossbones because that inflammatory comment implied Petitioner was something less than a human being. Generally [t]he prosecutor has wide latitude in closing argument to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence and to express such inferences to the jury. [209] A prosecuting attorney has a duty to the public `to act impartially in the interest only of justice,' [210] and may not make heated partisan comments which appeal to the passions of the jury in order to procure a conviction at all hazards. [211] In this case, the State's closing argument was proper. The first alleged improper comment by the prosecutor is taken out of context by Petitioner. The prosecutor told the jury: Now, Dr. Kean cannot say with 100 percent certainty that it's the victim's blood, Yoshiko Couch's. Dr. Kean is limited by the nature of her science. It's as if she has blinders on and she's saying well, based on this I can't say it is, but you can say that it isn't. Dr. Kean doesn't have the privilege and duty to consider the totality of the evidence. She's obviously not going to be asked the question to consider all of the evidence and tell us whether it is the victim's blood, but you can consider that and you can decide that. And the State says to you that there is no doubt that it's her blood.[ [212] ] The prosecutor's second comment was not inflammatory when he said Petitioner ought to have a label with a skull and crossbones because he's just as lethal as that [x]ylene, referring to xylene toxicity, which was one of the causes of Ms. Couch's death. The State was simply alluding to Petitioner as a person who killed with xylene poison. Defense counsel's decision to refrain from objecting during the prosecutor's closing argument was not deficient performance. Lawyers do not commonly object during closing argument absent egregious misstatements. [213] A decision not to object during summation is within the wide range of permissible professional legal conduct. [214]