Opinion ID: 168528
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Prosecutorial misconduct during the sentencing phase

Text: 132 In his third proposition, Mr. Short contends that the State committed repeated instances of prosecutorial misconduct during the sentencing stage through its excessive misuse of victim impact evidence, and that this conduct resulted in a fundamentally unfair proceeding. 133 Improper prosecutorial argument will only warrant federal habeas relief if it renders a petitioner's trial or sentencing fundamentally unfair. Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 642, 94 S.Ct. 1868, 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974). To establish that a prosecutor's remarks were so inflammatory that they prejudiced substantial rights, a petitioner must overcome a high threshold: he or she must demonstrate either persistent and pronounced misconduct or that the evidence was so insubstantial that absent the remarks, the jury would not have imposed the death penalty. Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 89, 55 S.Ct. 629, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935). 134 Mr. Short's counsel objected to none of the challenged statements. Reviewing for plain error and stressing the other evidence supporting the aggravators, the OCCA noted that because  the majority of the victim impact evidence was properly admitted . . . [w]e find nothing in the record to support [Mr. Short]'s claims of bad faith and disrespect for this Court on the part of the prosecutors. This allegation is denied. Short, 980 P.2d at 1104-05 (emphasis added). 135 The OCCA did recognize that certain of the prosecutor's comments ha[ve] been repeatedly condemned by this Court. . . . However, under the evidence in this case, we cannot find the comments affected the sentence. Id. at 1104-05. Furthermore, the OCCA determined that their cumulative effect did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial. Id. at 1105 (quoting Duckett v. State, 919 P.2d 7, 19 (Okla.Crim.App. 1995)). Considering, as the OCCA did, the evidence in support of the three aggravating factors, the above-described evidence in support of mitigation, and the strength of the State's case as to Mr. Short's guilt, we agree with the district court that the OCCA's decision was not an unreasonable application of federal law. 136