Opinion ID: 1426947
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Objections in the presence of the jury.

Text: Leonard contends that his counsel, Wessel, prejudiced him by objecting in the presence of the jury to evidence that Leonard had attempted to escape from prison. Wessel stated: I believe what the state is trying to do is to inflame the passions of the jury by leading them to believe that Mr. Leonard is an escape risk and therefore if they don't impose the death penalty he may cause a death out onto the streets. . . . . [A]gain, we submit that the sole purpose of this is just to frighten the jury to lead them to believe that Mr. Leonard may escape at some time and maybe cause them harm in the future. Leonard states that it is improper for a prosecutor to argue that allowing a defendant to live constitutes a personal risk to the jurors, but such a remark was far more prejudicial . . . when it came from his own attorney, whom the jury could reasonably conclude would know what his client was actually intending. We conclude that Leonard distorts the plain meaning, the intent, and the effect of his counsel's words and that no reasonable juror would have believed that Wessel was indicating that Leonard intended to escape and cause them harm. [4] Leonard also complains that here and at other times during the trial, Wessel unsuccessfully argued evidentiary objections in the presence of the jury, drawing the jury's attention to the evidence and emphasizing its unfavorable effect on the defense. Wessel testified at the post-conviction evidentiary hearing that he wanted his objections on the record [5] and wanted the jury to know that evidence, though admitted, still might not be dependable. Further, the district court stated at the hearing that it would not have allowed most objections to be made outside the presence of the jury or sidebar. We conclude that Leonard has failed to show that his counsel acted unreasonably or prejudiced him in objecting to the admission of evidence.