Opinion ID: 1685999
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: general prosecutorial misconduct

Text: Appellant asserts that throughout the trial the Commonwealth engaged in a pattern of misconduct which denied appellant a fair trial. In addition to the alleged errors discussed subsequently in this opinion, appellant cites as prosecutorial misconduct: (1) the Commonwealth's comment in voir dire that the Commonwealth represented the community and defense counsel did not; (2) the Commonwealth's derogatory comments in opening statement concerning A.C.'s mother; (3) the Commonwealth's comment in opening statement that Dr. Pope would give a diagnosis of sexual abuse; and (4) the Commonwealth's improper comments on jury instructions and defense counsel's actions. The trial court sustained numerous objections by appellant's counsel and gave admonitions to the jury when appropriate. [A] trial of this magnitude will invariably be marred with occasional minor or surface knicks which, when cured by the trial court, cause no substantial error. Stanford v. Commonwealth, Ky., 734 S.W.2d 781, 791 (1987). In reviewing the actions of lower courts, appellate courts must focus on the overall fairness of the trial, and not the culpability of the prosecutor. Slaughter v. Commonwealth, Ky., 744 S.W.2d 407, 411, 412 (1987). Alleged errors are not to be considered in a vacuum. We must consider the Commonwealth's conduct in context and in light of the trial as a whole. When viewed in this manner, a majority of this Court finds that the cumulative effect of the Commonwealth's actions did not deprive appellant of a fair trial.