Opinion ID: 2333284
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Did the prosecutor commit misconduct in the presentation of his closing argument?

Text: [¶ 19] At the trial's conclusion, the prosecutor presented his closing argument. He referred to Detective Smith's testimony that when the appellant was initially interviewed by the investigating detectives, the appellant merely said that he helped MY to bedhe made no mention of any subsequent sexual activity. It was only after the detectives told him that a DNA test had been performed on MY and requested that appellant produce a DNA sample, that the appellant informed the detectives that MY had been flirtatious earlier in the evening and then admitted he had digitally penetrated MY's vagina and attempted to do so with his penis. The prosecutor continued: If he didn't know she hadn't consented, if he didn't know that she was passed out and he took advantage of it, why hide that fact? Why completely omit that fact? He explained to the police that When she was crawling, her pants came down and she looked back and saw me and that must be where she got this crazy idea. That must be where the mistake came. The problem with alcohol is alcohol makes an easy victim. Alcohol makes an easy victim. Alcohol also makes it more difficult to believe the victim. You'll notice the first story that was told, that's how he used it. You can't believe her. She was out of it. She was wiped out. You know, she crawled and saw me. That must be where she has this crazy thought in her mind. Interestingly, I saw an article about Yellowstone. It talked about the elk were getting lung infections. They found out it was a parasite that would dig into the lungs and that parasite actually created the signs of a pheromone thing. It infects the lungs and is kind of a pneumonia-type thing. A scent goes out and attracts wolves. The wolves start pushing the herd. The one with the infected lung falls behind, is separated, and that's the target. In this case, what we have was alcohol being used; the intoxication, the struggle that she was having at that time. Easy target. An easy target, which we found out later in the trial that he had sexual desires for, anyway. She gets separated out. First, in the bathroom; then taken to the bedroom. People are asleep. Nobody else around. And he acts. (Emphasis added.) Although no objection was made at the trial, the appellant now argues that the above-emphasized language amounts to prosecutorial misconduct. The appellant claims that the prosecutor misstated the facts in evidence and improperly compared MY to the infected elk. [¶ 20] Because no objection was made to the foregoing statements at trial, we will review for plain error. [The appellant] made no objection to the prosecutor's closing argument. The general rule in Wyoming is that a failure to interpose a timely objection to improper argument is treated as a waiver, unless the prosecutor's misconduct is so flagrant as to constitute plain error, requiring reversal. A plain error analysis requires the appellant to demonstrate the violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law, clearly reflected in the record, resulting in the abridgment of a substantial right of the party to his material prejudice. Trujillo v. State, 2002 WY 51, ¶ 4, 44 P.3d 22, 23-24 (Wyo.2002) (internal citations omitted). We must look at the entire record to determine if the appellant was so prejudiced that any misconduct resulted in the denial of a fair trial. Burton v. State, 2002 WY 71, ¶ 11, 46 P.3d 309, 313 (Wyo.2002). [¶ 21] In analyzing claims of prosecutorial misconduct, we consider the prosecutor's argument in the context in which it was made and with regard to the evidence produced at trial. Trujillo, 2002 WY 51, ¶ 5, 44 P.3d at 24. The statements with which the appellant takes issue were made by the prosecutor while inquiring why the appellant failed initially to tell the detectives about his sexual contact with MY. [Prosecutors] may review the evidence and suggest to the jury inferences based thereon. The purpose of closing arguments is to allow counsel to offer ways of viewing the significance of the evidence. Browder v. State, 639 P.2d 889, 893 (Wyo.1982). The main point of contention in this case was whether the appellant reasonably should have known that MY was incapable of consenting. The prosecutor's statements suggest that the appellant deceived the detectives because he knew MY had not consented. The appellant attempted to bolster his argument by suggesting that MY had been flirtatious that evening. Although it appeared in quotations in the trial transcript, the prosecutor never suggested that the appellant's statement regarding MY's crazy idea was meant to be a literal quote from the detective's testimony. Rather, his purpose seems to have been to suggest to the jury that the appellant initially lied to protect himself and to cast doubt on MY's version of the events. This interpretation of the evidence was reasonable. [¶ 22] The appellant also suggests that the elk metaphor was inappropriate. Although perhaps not a traditional method of persuasion, this story was actually a reasonable parallel to the events as elicited at trial. The evidence suggests, and the appellant has acknowledged, that MY drank to the point of intoxication and left the group to be alone in the bathroom when she became unwell. Aware that MY was passed out on the floor, the appellant later helped MY into bed where he inserted his finger into her vagina and attempted to do so with his penis. In the elk story, the sick elk fall behind the rest of the pack and become separated and are subsequently attacked by the wolves. Although MY's fate was not as dire as that of the elk, the prosecutor only suggested that both the elk and MY were incapacitated and alone and, therefore, subject to attack. The elk metaphor provided the jury with a reasonable summary of the evidence presented at trial. [¶ 23] The prosecutor's statements in his closing argument did not amount to misconduct.