Opinion ID: 1443903
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jaso's Closing Argument

Text: McCarthy alleges reversible error with respect to statements made in closing argument by Jaso's counsel. [9] McCarthy argues that Jaso made a conscious attempt to improperly influence the jury by exacerbating the prejudicial impact of the insurance evidence allowed by the court. The court refused to instruct, as McCarthy requested, that Jaso was covered by insurance and would not have to personally pay any judgment. As stated infra, McCarthy has the burden of proving both error and prejudice. Myers v. Robertson, 891 P.2d 199, 208 (Alaska 1995); Zerbinos v. Lewis, 394 P.2d 886, 889-90 (Alaska 1964). The putative prejudicial statement was stricken by the court, and Jaso's counsel rephrased his argument and made it indisputably non-prejudicial. The court, however, refused to instruct the jury that Jaso had insurance. Jaso's argument was not so blatant or inflammatory that, once stricken and rephrased, it would have influenced a reasonable juror in such a way as to deprive McCarthy of a fair trial. Further, the curative instruction McCarthy sought regarding Jaso's insurance was not necessary and might have needlessly prejudiced Jaso. The court did not err in refusing to give the requested curative instruction.