Opinion ID: 1895384
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: misconduct by prosecutor

Text: In view of his numerous and repeated objections, Copple contends that a prejudicial impression was created regarding the jury, thereby denying him a fair trial. As this court reasoned in State v. Ross, 220 Neb. 843, 845-46, 374 N.W.2d 228, 230 (1985): While the granting of a mistrial is within the discretion of the trial court, Before it is necessary to grant a mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct, the defendant must show that a `substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred.' ... Furthermore, Neb.Rev. Stat. § 29-2308 (Cum.Supp.1984) provides that [n]o judgment shall be set aside, or new trial granted ... for error as to any matter of pleading or procedure, if the Supreme Court, after an examination of the entire cause, shall consider that no substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred. The defendant has failed to show a substantial miscarriage of justice. As this court has stated previously, Although the prosecutor was less than artful at times, it does not appear that his conduct was meant to, or did, inflame the prejudices or excite the passions of the jury against the defendant. State v. Tiff, 199 Neb. 519, 529, 260 N.W.2d 296, 302 (1977). We find that the reasoning of State v. Ross, supra , disposes of Copple's complaint about the prosecutor's conduct in relation to the matter of objections, inasmuch as Copple has failed to show that the frequency of his objections resulted in substantial prejudice or a miscarriage of justice. See Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-2308 (Reissue 1985). Copple suggests another aspect of misconduct by the prosecutora member of the county attorney's office testified at a committee hearing of the Nebraska Legislature regarding possible amendment of § 28-511(1). How that fact caused unfair prejudice to Copple in his trial is problematic to the point of frivolousness and deserves no further comment. There was no prosecutory misconduct.