Opinion ID: 1940588
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Failure To Object To Prosecutor's Closing Remark

Text: Luna next alleges he was denied his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel by Roubideaux's failure to object or request a limiting instruction regarding the following remark by the prosecutor during closing arguments: [The sheriff] was asked by defense counsel, `Where does the evidence point?' The answer says, `It points to the Defendant.' He asked what his opinion was of the Defendant's guilt. The Sheriff responded, `The Defendant is guilty.' [TT at 2374] The prosecutor's remarks apparently referred to the following cross-examination of the investigating sheriff by defense counsel: Q. Okay, Now, is it your position, Mr. Holloway, that you made a complete investigation of this entire crime? A. Yes, I believe its a very thorough investigation ... Q. As a matter of fact though all of your efforts were aimed at convicting George Luna, were they not? A. All of our efforts were aimed at trying to find out who was responsible for the killings of Lynn Luna and Helen Thomas, and my conclusions were that they are the defendant. Q. And, of course, you could be mistaken too, couldn't you? A. I don't believe that I am. Luna cites United States v. Splain, 545 F.2d 1131 (8th Cir.1976) and Zemina v. Solem, 438 F.Supp. 455 (D.S.D.1977), as authority for his position that the prosecutor's comments were highly improper. Both cases stand for the well-accepted principle that it is improper for a prosecutor to express his personal belief in the guilt of the defendant. While the remark in question in this case may have been improper, it was not a comment upon which constitutional error may be premised, nor was it the prosecutor's statement of personal belief in Luna's guilt. See Splain, supra; State v. Wood, 77 S.D. 120, 86 N.W.2d 530 (1957). Rather, the prosecutor simply repeated, although in a somewhat exaggerated version, the testimony of the sheriff. This testimony was not elicited on direct examination by the prosecutor, but upon cross-examination by defense counsel. Luna does not argue that defense counsel was deficient in eliciting the testimony referred to, nor for failing to object to the testimony. In any event, the argument would fail, as the testimony was elicited in pursuit of the reasonable trial strategy of attempting to convince the jury that the sheriff's investigation of the case focused upon Luna to the exclusion of other possible suspects.