Opinion ID: 874762
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the Prosecuting Attorney Commit Misconduct During Her Closing Argument by Appealing to the Jury's Passions or Prejudices?

Text: Defendant contends that the prosecuting attorney committed misconduct during her closing argument by appealing to the jury's passions and prejudices. He characterizes the misconduct as follows: The prosecutor made multiple comments about [the baby's] small size and how precious he was, as well as stating that he was alone and cold up in that cemetery in a little tiny grave and told the jury the important thing is remembering that this is about [the baby]. This is not about anything else, dirting (sic) on anybody or anything. This is about [the baby] and doing justice for him. The Defendant did not object to these statements. [W]here an error has occurred at trial and was not followed by a contemporaneous objection, such error shall only be reviewed where the defendant demonstrates to an appellate court that one of his unwaived constitutional rights was plainly violated. State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209, 226, 245 P.3d 961, 978 (2010). Whether comments during closing arguments rise to the level of fundamental error is a question that must be analyzed in the context of the trial as a whole. State v. Severson, 147 Idaho 694, 720, 215 P.3d 414, 440 (2009). The relevant question is whether the prosecutors' comments `so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.' Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181, 106 S.Ct. 2464, 2471, 91 L.Ed.2d 144, 157 (1986) (quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643, 94 S.Ct. 1868, 1871, 40 L.Ed.2d 431, 436-37 (1974)). The challenged comments, shown highlighted, in the context in which they occurred, are as follows: These [child homicide cases] are extremely hard. They affect all of us emotionally. But what we've got to focus on, is to use your skills that you've developed in your life reasoning things out, deciding who did this. There is a little boy that's lying in a cemetery outside of Caldwell in a little tiny grave because somebody got angry and killed him. This was no accident. The first part of this case, the first version of the truth, was what happened. Was it an accident, or was it intentional? And as time went by, it became real apparent, even to the defense expert, that this was no accident. This was abuse. This was murder. It shifted then to, who did it? That was in January of '06. So as you listen to the evidence in this case, and as you think about who did this, and you use your reasoning skills, focus on who's really important here, and that is [Baby]. [Baby] had his life stolen. He will never ever ride a tricycle, he will never ever go to first grade, or go to his prom, or graduate from high school because somebody got angry and killed him. Parents are put on this earth to nurture and take care of their kids, not kill them. There was a lot of dirt thrown on the mother, [Mother], in this case. But I would invite you to think about when we're talking about, as a far as the dirt on [Mother]. Was there ever any dirt, except her own admission of prior drug use when she was younger, that happened before [Baby] was killed? . . . . Afterwards, she gets the story from Mr. Carson, somebody that she loved, somebody that took her to heights of happiness she had never had. She grew up in a house that was a drug house. She didn't have a mom that supported her. She cuts on herself. She's on anti-depressants. This little angel here is what gave her every piece of happiness she had, and the man that had him with her was part of that (indicating). She never ever wanted to believe that he would kill [Baby]. She never ever wanted to admit that to herself. It's a very, very difficult thing, and she fell down. She lost it, in more ways than just physically. She went back to the old habit, the drug use. She was homeless. She lost her job. She made a lot of bad decisions. But just remember, this case is not about [Mother's] actions after the fact. This is about [Mother's] actions on the day [Baby] died. . . . . And, yeah, they didat least Detective Ballard didconfront him [Defendant]. It was accusatory. It was an interrogation. And she chose to use a shock method to try to get to the truth. What really happened to [Baby]? Tell me, tell me, tell me, tell me, tell me. Over and over again. Okay. It's not matching the physical evidence, let's try the shock treatment. She gets the book of [autopsy] photos out, only some of which you saw. And when you, not even knowing this precious little angel, saw those photos, what was the reaction? What do normal people have as a reaction? Do they sit there and think, that's my baby, scream out, cover their face? A few seconds tick by, they start looking at the photos, close, right there on the table in front of him. Looking at the photos. And the Detective's saying, look, there's one skull fracture. There's another skull fracture. Didn't happen the way you said it did. For a long time that book's open there, and you see if you see a tear in that interview. I mean, even if you were an animal lover, taking this clearly apart from being a parent, could you even look at pictures like that of your favorite pet if they had to do that? I mean, let alone the most precious thing to your soul, your child. Unimaginable. Strangers that don't even know that baby have a hard time looking at those pictures. . . . . Yeah. [Baby] is up in a cemetery, and [Mother] hasn't bought him a nice big headstone; she is dirt poor. She doesn't even have a house. Yet, that's what she heard on the witness stand. He's in an unmarked grave. No, he's got his name on the grave, he just doesn't have a big stone, because I can't afford it. They want $5,000. Nobody else has made any efforts either. What about Mr. Carson? There is no stone for [Baby]. But there is hope. There is hope that justice will be done in this case. That's the job we have in this courtroom today, is to do justice and not be fooled by all these other things that are meant to distract, meant to anger you and get you emotionally upset with [Mother]. . . . . Most of the time First Degree Murder says, premeditated. Lay and wait, plan it out. That's not how this is. This law is written so if you lose it, and you beat that baby, and you kill that baby, and you know what you're doing when you do it, it's no accident, you'll suffer the consequences. It's First Degree Murder. And Mr. Carson, the one that was with this baby 30 minutes before he came to the hospital, beat this child to death. That little child is laying in the grave in Caldwell with no big marker on him, but dearly loved by a mother who's visited him multiple times since she's been here. It's because Mr. Carson lost it. He lost his temper. That child lost everything. . . . . If you don't think that express malice applies, there's also malice implied. And that's when you look at everything again. It reads, Malice is implied when the killing resulted from an intentional act, the natural consequences of the act are dangerous to human life. The act was deliberately performed with knowledge of the danger to and with conscious disregard for human life. Those tiny little fingers. Those little bitty fingers that you're so careful to pull through the arms of their garments when you're dressing them. Their little nighties or their sweaters. You know how tender babies are, that's why we hold them so tight, so we don't drop them. That's why [Mother] put the pillow under him on the sofa, so if he rolled off, he had a pillow there. They are the most precious little tiny things. And when you take them and slam them against something, or strike them multiple times, whether it's with a PlayStation handle, or on the table, or with your fist, blunt force trauma, that's disregard for human life [referring to the jury instruction defining implied malice]. In context, the prosecuting attorney's comments were not attempts to have the jury decide the case based upon emotion rather than upon the law as set forth in the jury instructions and the evidence admitted during the trial. The reference to Mother not being able to purchase a headstone for Baby's grave was brought out by defense counsel during his cross-examination. In an apparent attempt to show that the lack of a headstone indicated that Mother did not really love Baby, and could have therefore killed him, defense counsel questioned Mother as follows: Q. Okay. A couple of questions I forgot. You indicated that you loved [Baby] deeply; correct? A. Yes, I did. Q. And you said that you visited him every Sunday at the grave site; is that correct? A. Yes, it is. Q. I have been there. I visited his grave site. And it is unmarked. Would you disagree that, there is no headstone? A. There is a marker on his headstone. Q. That comes from the County, doesn't it? A. Yes. With me being unemployed and being at rock bottom, I really can't afford to buy my son a headstone. Q. I know that. I know that. So you didn't have the finances and the wherewithal? You had no money whatsoever to put a headstone up for [Baby]? A. No, I don't. Q. You didn't at any time during 2005? A. No. They want almost $5,000 for a headstone, for my son's headstone. Q. The one you want to get him? A. Yes. Q. Okay. A. I have made arrangements for it. And I have Q. I want to ask you some general question about [Defendant] as a father and also about you as a mother. Prior to closing arguments, the district court instructed the jury: As members of the jury, it is your duty to decide what the facts are and to apply those facts to the law that I have given you. You are to decide the facts from all the evidence presented in the case. The evidence you are to consider consists of: 1. sworn testimony of witnesses; 2. exhibits which have been admitted into evidence; 3. any facts to which the parties have stipulated. Certain things you have heard or seen are not evidence, including: 1. arguments and statements by lawyers. The lawyers are not witnesses. What they say in their opening statements, closing arguments, and at other times is included to help you interpret the evidence, but is not evidence. If the facts as you remember them differ from the way the lawyers have stated them, follow your memory. . . . . The line separating acceptable from improper advocacy is not easily drawn; there is often a gray zone. United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 7, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1042, 84 L.Ed.2d 1, 7 (1985). Considering the prosecutor's challenged comments in the context in which they occurred and the court's instructions to the jury, there is no indication that the comments so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process. Defendant also contends that during closing argument the prosecutor vouched for Mother's credibility by making the following statement, highlighted in context: If she was cold blooded enough, number one, to beat a baby to death, multiple blowsand that skull fracture took a tremendous amount of force and violence and somebody cold blooded enough to let somebody else take the fall, why didn't she just disappear? But she's here. Does that make sense? She's here to support [Baby]. She testified about what happened that day. She told you that she was home with [Baby] during the day, and that he had a little bit of a fever, was sleeping on the couch. She changed him, she took his temperature, he got the Tylenol, she got ready for work. Idaho Rule of Professional Conduct 3.4 provides, A lawyer shall not . . . in trial . . . state a personal opinion as to . . . the credibility of a witness . . . or the guilt or innocence of an accused. The rule applies to both the prosecuting attorney and to defense counsel. With respect to due process, however, the Supreme Court has explained why the prosecutor cannot vouch for a witness's credibility or express a personal opinion of the defendant's guilt. The prosecutor's vouching for the credibility of witnesses and expressing his personal opinion concerning the guilt of the accused pose two dangers: such comments can convey the impression that evidence not presented to the jury, but known to the prosecutor, supports the charges against the defendant and can thus jeopardize the defendant's right to be tried solely on the basis of the evidence presented to the jury; and the prosecutor's opinion carries with it the imprimatur of the Government and may induce the jury to trust the Government's judgment rather than its own view of the evidence. United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 18-19, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1048, 84 L.Ed.2d 1, 14-15 (1985). Defendant's trial counsel did not object to the challenged comments. By the challenged comments, the prosecutor was not expressing a personal opinion regarding the credibility of Mother. Defendant had testified that Mother killed Baby. The prosecutor was merely arguing that Mother's conduct, as shown by the evidence, was inconsistent with that allegation. The prosecutor and defense counsel are free to argue the evidence and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from that evidence, even if the evidence argued indicates that a witness is or is not truthful. Finally, Defendant contends that the prosecuting attorney committed misconduct in an attempt to explain the concept of reasonable doubt to the jury. Again, there was no objection to the argument. As explained above, the trial court instructed the jury on the meaning of reasonable doubt and instructed the jury to follow the law as given by the court. We need not address the prosecutor's explanation of reasonable doubt because, even if it was incorrect, we presume the jury followed the court's instructions.