Opinion ID: 1451124
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Improper Accusations Against the Defendant and Defense Counsel

Text: In his opening statement, the prosecutor wrote on the court blackboard We are responsible for the consequences of our actions. The circuit court allowed defense counsel to erase that writing before testimony. The prosecutor again wrote it on the blackboard during his first closing argument, and again, the circuit court permitted erasure of the statement before the closing argument. The following colloquy subsequently took place: DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY: I knew, and I suspect everyone of you all knew when you came out of that jury room after we had completed voir dire, that where we were coming in this case is exactly where we are right now. You've got to come down to the proposition of what does it mean to cause somebody's death, and why that's on the board up there and that's why it got erased before. Because they can't stand it and DEFENSE COUNSEL: Your Honor, may I approach? BENCH CONFERENCE: DEFENSE COUNSEL: That is totally improper argument. Mr. Long knows it's not proper just to leave mottos and aphorisms up, you know, on a bulletin board during a trial. DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY: If it's not proper did your Honor instruct for it to be erased? DEFENSE COUNSEL: I ask permission andI asked permission to erase and it was allowedand because it was the proper thing to do, and I move for a mistrial and without waiving a motion for mistrial IIeven thought an admonition is insufficient, I ask that it be admonthat the jury be admonished thatthat having that having items from opening statement displayed to the jury during the trial is improper and that's why it was erased. THE COURT: The court's of the opinion that the jury instructions properly cover it. The motion's denied and the admonition's denied. DEFENSE COUNSEL: Your Honorfor the record, just in case the record is not clear, the item which was put on a portable blackboard in the court in opening statement, which was erased and to which you refers [sic] and which is replaced by Mr. Morledge in close, reads We are responsible for the consequences of our actions. With the word are a-r-e underlined. THE COURT: Okay. Jefferson argues that the prosecutor's statement was an improper attack on either the defendant or defense counsel. He states that it is wholly improper for the prosecutor to attack the defense for doing somethingerasing the blackboard specifically permitted by the circuit court. In support of his argument, Jefferson cites Timmons v. State, 286 Ark. 42, 688 S.W.2d 944 (1985). Timmons is distinguishable from the instant case. In Timmons , this court found prejudice where the prosecutor called a witness to the stand when it was known that the witness could not give valid relevant testimony and then argued to the jury that the defense prevented it from hearing the witness's testimony. Here, the prosecutor's reference to the board erasure was not an improper comment on evidence. Jefferson has failed to show that the prosecutor's remark regarding the blackboard erasure was prejudicial. Accordingly, we hold that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jefferson's motion for mistrial.