Opinion ID: 1230162
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: district court's comment

Text: On March 26, 2001, jury selection in Duncan's trial began with the court's calling and swearing in a number of prospective jurors. Shortly after the State began questioning the panel, a prospective juror expressed concern about his ability to participate in a trial and return a guilty verdict which might later lead to a death sentence. The State responded by asking several questions of the prospective juror in an attempt to determine if the prospective juror could still act in a fair and impartial manner. The court also entered the discussion, stating: [L]et me put it another way. Everybody in the courtroom has a job to do. The prosecution is to prosecute the case. Her job is to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The attorney for the defendant's job is to resist the State's case and prove his client innocent if necessary. The court reporter's job is to write down everything that is said in the courtroom. It's my job to referee this affair, and if a verdict of guilty is returned, to set the penalty. That's all I can tell you. Everybody has a different job to do. Does that help? In his first assignment of error, Duncan argues that the district court committed prejudicial error when it commented to the jury panel that `[t]he attorney for the defendant's job is to resist the State's case and prove his client innocent if necessary.'  Brief for appellant at 18. As a result, Duncan claims he is entitled to a new trial. Duncan characterizes the court's comment as a jury instruction. However, when viewed in context, it is clear that the district court was not attempting to instruct the jury panel on the applicable law. Instead, the court was merely commenting to one potential juror about the roles played by various participants in the trial. We have said that trial courts should refrain from commenting on evidence or making remarks prejudicial to a litigant or calculated to influence the minds of the jury. State v. Red Kettle, 239 Neb. 317, 476 N.W.2d 220 (1991). To establish reversible error, a defendant must demonstrate that a trial court's conduct, whether action or inaction during the proceeding against the defendant, prejudiced or otherwise adversely affected a substantial right of the defendant. State v. Privat, 251 Neb. 233, 556 N.W.2d 29 (1996). While the inaccuracy of the district court's comment is obvious, the record fails to show that Duncan was prejudiced by the court's comment. Throughout the daylong voir dire, both the State and defense made numerous mentions to the jury panel of the presumption of innocence to be applied in Duncan's favor or to the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. At one point, Duncan's trial counsel pointed out the district court's error and told the jury panel: I'm not sure when it was mentioned, but it was mentioned this morning that Mr. Duncan may have to prove himself innocent or something like that. That may not be the exact words, but all of you must understand that the burden is upon the State of Nebraska to prove him guilty. After the jury was selected and sworn in, the district court issued its preliminary instructions to the jury. Those preliminary instructions correctly instructed that [t]he Defendant is presumed to be innocent. This presumption of innocence is evidence in favor of the Defendant and continues throughout the trial, until he shall have been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also issued a preliminary instruction to the jury regarding reasonable doubt that closely resembled the approved instruction in State v. McHenry, 247 Neb. 167, 525 N.W.2d 620 (1995). Finally, the district court issued final, written instructions to the jury at the close of the weeklong trial identical to those preliminary instructions mentioned above. Viewing the erroneous comments at issue here in combination with the comments of the parties during jury selection, the accurate preliminary instructions, and the accurate final instructions, we conclude that Duncan suffered no prejudice as a result of the comment.