Opinion ID: 1323198
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: arguments of commonwealth's attorney

Text: Defendant contends that the following argument of the Commonwealth's Attorney in the penalty phase of the case was improper and requires reversal: [Defense] counsel says, `We're not saying don't punish him,' but a few hours ago counsel was arguing that the other people going through the Stone house could have stolen the wallet, that the Commonwealth didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt the cause of death. Of course you rejected all of that and you found the defendant guilty of murdering Mr. Stone in the commission of robbery. So this business of saying, oh, we're not saying don't punish him, that's now, it wasn't a few hours ago. This argument by the Commonwealth's Attorney appeared to be the beginning of an attack upon defense counsel's alternate position taken in the closing argument during the penalty phase of the case. The Commonwealth's Attorney's argument should not have been permitted. Defense counsel had the right to argue alternative defense positions, given the fact that the jury had rejected his argument upon the first position taken in the guilt phase of the case. We do not find that the argument of the Commonwealth's Attorney prejudiced the defendant's status before the jury. At most it was an effort to capitalize on the allegedly inconsistent positions taken by defense counsel. We believe the jury understood this as lawyer talk and had the common sense to treat it as such. We found no cases, and Williams does not cite any, which discuss criticisms of inconsistent positions taken by counsel. Considering this argument against the background of the entire case, we find no prejudicial error in the trial court's failure to sustain the objection to the argument of the Commonwealth. As we said in Harris v. Commonwealth, 133 Va. 700, 708, 112 S.E. 753, 755 (1922): Every person accused of crime, whether guilty or innocent, is entitled to have all his legal rights protected during his trial. And in a criminal case, the Commonwealth's attorney, as the representative of the people, should guard against any violation of his rights in this respect. But if every improper remark of counsel were ground for reversal, comparatively few verdicts would stand, since the most eminent counsel are sometimes led into such inadvertencies. Appellate courts, therefore, hesitate to interfere by granting a new trial, except where the prosecuting attorney has so clearly departed from the line of legitimate procedure that any reasonable person will conclude that the jury were certainly prejudiced thereby. (Emphasis in original.) Williams contends further that the Commonwealth's Attorney improperly argued before the trial court at the sentencing hearing that Williams' plea of not guilty was also a denial of his confession, indicating a continued lack of remorse. Williams' premise is that a plea of not guilty only puts in issue ... guilt or innocence ... but does not act to deny any evidence the prosecution presents. The premise is faultythe plea controverts the existence of every fact essential to establish the accused's guilt. See Neal v. Commonwealth, 124 Va. 842, 847, 98 S.E. 629, 630 (1919); Potts v. Commonwealth, 113 Va. 732, 734, 73 S.E. 470, 471 (1912); accord Roe v. United States, 287 F.2d 435, 440 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 824, 82 S.Ct. 43, 7 L.Ed.2d 29 (1961); United States v. De Angelo, 138 F.2d 466, 469 (3d Cir.1943); People v. Aquilante, 208 Cal.App.2d 530, 536, 25 Cal.Rptr. 344, 348 (1962); State v. Golden, 67 Idaho 497, 501, 186 P.2d 485, 487 (1947). We hold that a plea of not guilty also contests the validity and admissibility of a confession. Furthermore, Williams recanted the confessions before the judge when he described them as dreams in his testimony during the suppression hearing. His continued denial of involvement was a material consideration in assessing his protestations of remorse at sentencing. Finally, we note that the argument was before the court and not the jury. A trial judge is uniquely capable because of his training, experience and judicial discipline to disregard potentially prejudicial argument during the mental process of adjudication. See Eckhart v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 213, 216, 279 S.E.2d 155, 157 (1981). We must assume that the trial judge did not penalize Williams because he pled not guilty and denied his confession in the suppression hearing, but merely considered those matters as evidence of Williams' recent attitude about this crime and his other criminal activities. We find no merit in this assignment of error.