Opinion ID: 1529733
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: did the closing argument of the prosecutor constitute reversible error?

Text: In any consideration of alleged prosecutorial misconduct, particularly, as here, when the conduct occurred during closing argument, we must determine whether the conduct was of such an egregious nature as to deny the accused his constitutional right of due process of law. Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 94 S.Ct. 1868, 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974). The required analysis, by an appellate court, must focus on the overall fairness of the trial, and not the culpability of the prosecutor. Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 102 S.Ct. 940, 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982). In his final summation, the prosecutor noted that what defense counsel said is not evidence in the case. He criticized the defense counsel for presenting a great octopus defense. He accused counsel of pulling a scam, and he questioned the sharpness of counsel. Great leeway is allowed to both counsel in a closing argument. It is just that  an argument. A prosecutor may comment on tactics, may comment on evidence, and may comment as to the falsity of a defense position. We find that the remarks referred to here were well within the proper bounds of a closing argument and certainly did not affect the outcome of the trial. See Hunt v. Commonwealth, Ky., 466 S.W.2d 957 (1971); Houston v. Commonwealth, Ky.App., 641 S.W.2d 42 (1982); and Johnson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 302 S.W.2d 585 (1957). Appellant urges that the prosecutor coerced the jury to reach a verdict of guilty. He stated to the jury that he had done all he could do, that the police had done all they could do, that the judge had been fair and impartial, and ... now it's going to come your time to deal with justice in this particular case. This argument of appellant is little short of being specious. A prosecutor can ask the jury not to let the officer down. Johnson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 446 S.W.2d 561 (1969). A prosecutor may call on the jury to do its duty. McPeak v. Commonwealth, 308 Ky. 29, 213 S.W.2d 447 (1948). A prosecutor may tell a jury that one way to stop murder is for all of us to do our job. . . . Wallen v. Commonwealth, Ky., 657 S.W.2d 232 (1983). Under the parameters of these cases, it is obvious that the statement was proper. Appellant also complains that the prosecutor expressed his personal opinion of the defendant's guilt. Such comment is admissible as long as that opinion is based on evidence in the case. Koonce v. Commonwealth, Ky., 452 S.W.2d 822 (1970). Lastly, complaint is made that the prosecutor made reference to defendant as a bit of evil. We have held it permissible to refer to a defendant as a beast, Koonce, supra , and as a desperado, Holbrook v. Commonwealth, 249 Ky. 795, 61 S.W.2d 644 (1933). It has also been held proper to describe a particular defendant as being worse than all the convicts and traitors in hell. Cook v. Bordenkircher, 602 F.2d 117 (6th Cir.1979). A bit of evil is certainly less offensive than the sobriquets applied in those cases. We find no error in any of the arguments made by the prosecutor in his closing argument.