Opinion ID: 2353577
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Prosecutorial Tactics

Text: At several points during the trial, White objected to remarks made by the prosecutor. He now contends that each of these incidents requires that we reverse his conviction. First, during the voir dire of prospective jurors, the prosecutor asked two of them who indicated that they had a transportation problem whether, [i]f you were chosen as a juror and we were able to provide some kind of transportation for you back and forth to the courthouse, would that take care of the problem for you? White moved to exclude for cause those jurors who heard the prosecutor's questions. After the presiding justice denied the motion, White and his co-defendant McKenna exercised twelve of their peremptory challenges on those jurors. During trial, the prosecutor referred to the baby as little guy and little baby. When she referred to the little guy again, White objected. The presiding justice cautioned the prosecutor against use of the phrase but did not give the jury any curative instructions. The prosecutor thereafter refrained from further use of either term. Finally, during her summation, the prosecutor apologized to two jurors by name for possible rudeness to them during trial that she claimed was necessitated by her duty to remain impartial. White's motions for curative instructions or a mistrial were both denied. As we have previously pointed out, the prosecutor has a duty to see that the accused has a fair trial [as well as the duty] to bring about a just conviction of the guilty. State v. Reilly, 446 A.2d 1125, 1128 (Me. 1982) (quoting State v. Wyman, 270 A.2d 460, 463 (Me.1970)). Although we do not condone the prosecutor's tactics in this case, however, we do not find that her remarks were of such a nature as to unduly influence the jury. We therefore conclude that the presiding justice did not err in overruling White's objections.