Opinion ID: 2323489
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Allegedly Improper Closing Argument by the State

Text: Defendant next contends that two remarks made by the prosecution in closing argument deprived him of a fair trial. The prosecution criticized the defense strategy to discredit the prosecutrix by calling two of her friends to testify, stating: You heard from [name deleted], a dear friend ... of the victim. She never knew anything about this incest. She does now. The victim's friend has been brought into it. Defendant seasonably objected to those comments and argues on appeal that those statements seriously prejudiced his case by implying that he had an improper motive for calling those witnesses. Because the alleged error was preserved by objection, we review defendant's contention under the harmless error rule. M.R.Crim.P. 52(a). Although the prosecution's remarks were impertinent, any error was harmless because we confidently conclude that it is highly probable that [such remarks] did not affect the judgment. State v. True, 438 A.2d at 467. Defendant also complains, for the first time on appeal, of the following remarks by the prosecution: Throughout this entire defense, ladies and gentlemen, you're constantly saying, well, what kind of mother is Luella DeLong? Remember, she is not on trial, and what kind of a sister is Donna? Donna DeLong is not on trial. That man right over there is (indicating). They're not focusing in on the issues of this case. They are trying to develop a smoke screen to divert your attention from the real issues when they suggest to you that Donna DeLong and Luella DeLong are at fault. Because defendant failed to object at trial, we review defendant's contention under the obvious error rule. M.R.Crim.P. 52(b). The record shows that the prosecutor appropriately used his closing argument to review the evidence and present his analysis in summation with vigor and zeal by highlighting absurdities or discrepancies in defendant's case. State v. Smith, 456 A.2d 16, 17 (Me.1983). Although the prosecution's argument may have denigrat[ed] [the] defense strategy, he did so by sticking to the legal issues and marshalling the evidence. State v. McDonald, 472 A.2d 424, 426 (Me.1984). See also State v. Collin, 441 A.2d 693, 697 (Me.1982). We can find no error, to say nothing of the obvious error necessary for vacating the results of defendant's trial.