Opinion ID: 1464772
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Four Misstatements of Fact

Text: Counsel has wide latitude during closing arguments. Brewer v. Commonwealth, 206 S.W.3d 343, 350 (Ky.2006). The longstanding rule is that counsel may comment on the evidence and make all legitimate inferences that can be reasonably drawn therefrom. East v. Commonwealth, 249 Ky. 46, 52, 60 S.W.2d 137, 139 (1933). This Court recently explained the appropriate standard of review for prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments, stating that reversal is required only if the misconduct is `flagrant' or if each of the following are satisfied: (1) proof of defendant's guilt is not overwhelming; (2) defense counsel objected; and (3) the trial court failed to cure the error with sufficient admonishment. Miller v. Commonwealth, 283 S.W.3d 690, 704 (Ky.2009) (emphasis removed, quoting Barnes v. Commonwealth, 91 S.W.3d 564, 568 (Ky.2002)). Additionally, this Court must always consider these closing arguments `as a whole.' Id. (quoting Young v. Commonwealth, 25 S.W.3d 66, 74-75 (Ky.2000)). First, Appellant assigns as error the prosecutor beginning her closing argument by holding up Appellant's rifle to her shoulder in a firing position while declaring it's show time. The prosecutor continued by telling the jury that this is what Appellant had said as he entered the laundromat. At trial, Appellant objected to her holding the gun up to her shoulder while saying it's show time because no evidence supported the inference that these two actions occurred simultaneously. Instead, the most the testimony showed was that Appellant walked into the laundromat, declared it's show time, and that some time while in the laundromat he pointed his rifle at Susan. Appellant is correct that the evidence did not affirmatively show that these events happened simultaneously. However, given the ambiguity in the testimony, the prosecutor's implication that these acts occurred simultaneously (or close to simultaneously) is reasonable. The witness inside the laundromat testified that Appellant said it's show time, aimed his rifle at Susan, and that everything happened very quickly. Susan testified that she felt an impelling force enter the laundromat and that by the time she could turn around Appellant was already aiming his rifle at her. Although the precise timing of events is ambiguous, the evidence shows that Appellant held his rifle in a firing position and said it's show time in very short order. Accordingly, linking the two events temporally, as the prosecutor did, is not misconduct. Thus, there was no error. Second, Appellant assigns as error the prosecutor indicating that Susan injured her hand while fighting with Appellant. At trial, Appellant objected to this statement, stating that Susan injured her hand later while she was hiding from Appellant, not while she was fighting with him. The evidence, however, was unclear on this point. Susan appeared to first notice how profusely she was bleeding while she was hiding, but it is not clear when she first sustained the injury to her hand. Yet, enough evidence was introduced to make the prosecutor's inference reasonable. Appellant testified that, while struggling with Susan over his rifle, he cut his own hand on his rifle's bayonet. It is reasonable to believe Susan also suffered injuries to her hand in that struggle. Additionally, Susan testified that, when Appellant was beating her with the butt of his rifle, she attempted to deflect his blows with her hands. This is certainly enough to reasonably infer that she injured her hand during this fight, and not later when she was hiding. There was no error. Third, Appellant assigns as error the prosecutor preparing a diagram for the jury of the area surrounding the laundromat. Appellant objected at trial that one of the witnesses was not in the position shown on the diagram. While using the diagram, the prosecutor conceded to the jury that the diagram was not to scale, was not completely accurate, and was being used to show, in general, where witnesses were standing. Apparently, the prosecutor used the diagram to show that the witnesses' testimony was consistent from their respective vantage points, to refute Appellant's argument to the contrary. Insofar as the diagram was not completely accurate, this misconduct was not flagrant, given the prosecutor's admission to the jury that the diagram was not completely accurate and was only being used to show generalities. This is not error. Last, Appellant assigns as error the prosecutor's misstatement as to where a witness said Appellant was standing when he aimed his rifle outside the laundromat. Specifically, Appellant objected at trial when the prosecutor said the witness testified that Appellant was standing at the corner, pointing on her diagram to a corner between two buildings. Appellant asserted this was a misstatement because the witness actually said he was standing at the street corner. As the Commonwealth correctly points out in its brief, however, the witness testified that he saw Appellant pose up on the corner in a firing-type pose. The witness did not describe Appellant's location as the street corner. It thus appears that Appellant's trial counsel made an erroneous objection at trial, and his appellate counsel simply repeated it to this Court. Accordingly, there was no error.