Opinion ID: 1405581
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: Misconduct in the Appeal to Fear

Text: ¶ 67 Defendant argued that the you hear about a murder argument, quoted in ¶ 56, was a direct attempt to try and prejudice the jury, put the fear in them that if they acquit Mr. Hughes, that, number one, he'll probably get out of custody, and number two, he will be uncontrolled and he'll be violent. The trial court found no error; it remarked that this is the same argument that is often used in defense cases of, ladies and gentlemen, this is the only time you will ever be able to vote on the defendant being not guilty. You don't get to do it twice, you don't get to, someday down the road, it is the similar argument. We disagree. ¶ 68 The defense argument referred to by the trial court is a reminder to the jurors of the finality of their decision; it is not a suggestion that the jurors will feel responsible for future crimes unless they reject the insanity defense. Also, when defense counsel makes a this is the only time argument, the prosecutor gets the last word in rebuttal. Here, Defendant had the burden of proof on the insanity defense, but the State had the last word on it. Whether to allow defense counsel surrebuttal on the insanity defense is within the trial court's discretion. See State v. Turrentine, 152 Ariz. 61, 65, 730 P.2d 238, 242 (App.1986) (holding that Rule 19.1(a), Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, gives the trial court discretion whether to allow surrebuttal by defendant on the insanity defense). ¶ 69 Counsel have wide latitude in closing argument. See Dumaine, 162 Ariz. at 401, 783 P.2d at 1193. It is improper, however, for a prosecutor to draw the jury's attention to the potential disposition if defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity. See Cornell, 179 Ariz. at 327, 878 P.2d at 1365 (A long line of our cases has held that this type of statement is improper.); State v. Purcell, 117 Ariz. 305, 308, 572 P.2d 439, 442 (1977) (We have held that it is error for a prosecutor to initiate such an argument.). ¶ 70 A prosecutor can certainly argue that Defendant has the burden of proving insanity by clear and convincing evidence, for that is the law. See A.R.S. § 13-502 (1989). However, the comment about a future murder or something like that is an improper appeal to fear. In State v. Makal, 104 Ariz. 476, 478, 455 P.2d 450, 452 (1969), the prosecutor ended his rebuttal by imploring the jury, Don't arrive at a verdict which will give Mr. Makal the opportunity to kill again, meaning that the jury should reject the insanity defense. In reversing, we noted, Every jurisdiction which has passed upon a similar argument has held that it is erroneous misconduct on the part of the prosecuting attorney. Id. ¶ 71 The State asserts that the prosecutor was referring to future crimes in general, not to future crimes by Defendant. We seriously doubt that this prosecutor was trying to walk that line. He referred to the same violent crimes that Defendant had committed, and he associated those future crimes with the consequence of finding Defendant not guilty by reason of insanity. The improper inference is clear, in a trial and an argument as permeated by prosecutorial misconduct as this one. ¶ 72 The State argues that more direct commentary about future crimes has been found to be non-reversible. See State v. McLoughlin, 133 Ariz. 458, 462-63, 652 P.2d 531, 535-36 (1982); State v. Marvin, 124 Ariz. 555, 557, 606 P.2d 406, 408 (1980); State v. Garrison, 120 Ariz. 255, 257, 585 P.2d 563, 565 (1978). These cases are distinguishable. McLoughlin granted a new trial on other grounds and cautioned the prosecutor to take care to choose words that cannot be construed to refer to future conduct. Id. at 463, 652 P.2d at 532. Neither Marvin nor Garrison involved an argument suggesting that defendant would be back on the street unless the jury rejected the insanity defense. ¶ 73 In Cornell, where the prosecutor questioned an expert witness about defendant's possible release if found not guilty by reason of insanity, we concluded that the questioning raised an issue that was both irrelevant and prejudicial. Id. at 327-28, 878 P.2d at 1365-66. The error was harmless in Cornell because the evidence of insanity was sparse, it was based on a new theory in psychology, and the State's two experts testified that Defendant was sane and was probably malingering. Id. at 330, 878 P.2d at 1368. We cannot find harmless error here, where the evidence of mental illness was overwhelming, where the evidence of insanity was substantial, and where the State called no mental health expert. ¶ 74 We hold that the cumulative effect of the prosecutor's misconduct deprived Defendant of a fair trial. We do not have to decide which of the prosecutor's misconduct would have been reversible error without the rest of the prosecutor's misconduct. ¶ 75 Reversed and remanded for a new trial. ZLAKET, C.J., and JONES, V.C.J., FELDMAN and MARTONE, JJ., concur.