Opinion ID: 1631088
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: commonwealth's voir dire comments

Text: The Appellant's third claim of error is that the trial court erred by failing to admonish the jury that the prosecutor represented the state, not the victim, after the attorney for the Commonwealth asked the jury if they believed the victim also deserved a fair trial and a day in court. The Appellant argues the questions constituted prosecutorial misconduct which effectively denied him a fair trial. Upon this questioning by the Commonwealth, counsel for the Appellant lodged an objection. The judge stated that she was troubled by the questioning and the Commonwealth should move on but stated she would not give an admonition. The questioning resumed, along other lines, without any further objections or requests for relief by the Appellant. It is not necessary, however, for the Commonwealth to exclude mention of the victim of a crime or for the victim to be de-humanized in order to ensure the defendant gets a fair trial. The Commonwealth is the representative of the people and represent their interests, including the interests of the victims. A fair trial for one, is a fair trial for all. These are not two different standards  they are the same. In Bowling v. Commonwealth, 942 S.W.2d 293, 302-03 (Ky.1997), this Court held that the jury may receive an adequate . . . description of the victim as long as the victim is not glorified or enlarged. The victim of a homicide can be identified as more than a naked statistic and the defendant is not unduly prejudiced by the identification of the victim as a human being. Id. In Bowling, we cited Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 827, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 2609, 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991) (overruling two recent cases, both of which had held the admission of victim impact evidence in a capital trial was a per se violation of the Eighth Amendment), quoting former Justice Cardozo who said,  Justice that is due to the accused is due to the accuser also. The concept of fairness must not be strained till it is narrowed to a filament. We are to keep the balance true. Payne, 501 U.S. at 827, 111 S.Ct. at 2609, cited in Bowling, 942 S.W.2d at 303 (emphasis added). The Court further stated in Payne that the harm inflicted upon the families, loved ones, and community of the slain victim is an integral element in the assessment of the criminal's blameworthiness. Payne, 501 U.S. at 827, 111 S.Ct. at 2609. Because we have long held as a cornerstone of our jurisprudence that the prosecution represents all of the people of the Commonwealth, Goff v. Commonwealth, 241 Ky. 428, 44 S.W.2d 306, 308 (1931), we are not persuaded that the question during voir dire of the victim receiving a fair trial was fundamentally unfair. [4] The Commonwealth first referred to the Appellant's right to a fair trial and then suggested that the trial be fair to all those involved. We do not believe the Commonwealth's question and the court's response thereto constitute error. For the sake of argument, even if we found this to be error, it would be harmless as it did not affect the substantial rights of the Appellant, or the overall fairness of the trial.