Opinion ID: 2637061
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Vouching for Credibility of Witnesses

Text: [¶ 33] Burton claims that the prosecutor improperly vouched for the credibility of the State's witnesses when he made the following statement in the rebuttal portion of his closing argument: But [the State's witnesses] were blatantly honest with you about lot of things. They had to admit they were doing drugs.... That's a hard thing to admit. [¶ 34] A prosecutor may not, even when responding to defense arguments, personally vouch for the credibility of the State's witnesses. Lane v. State, 12 P.3d 1057, 1065 (Wyo.2000); Harper v. State, 970 P.2d 400, 403 (Wyo.1998). When the prosecutor asserts his credibility or personal belief, an additional factor is injected into the case. This additional factor is that counsel may be perceived by the jury as an authority whose opinion carries greater weight than their own opinion: that members of the jury might be persuaded not by the evidence, but rather by a perception that counsel's opinions are correct because of his position as prosecutor, an important state official entrusted with enforcing the criminal laws of a sovereign state. While the prosecutor is expected to be an advocate, he may not exploit his position to induce a jury to disregard the evidence or misapply the law. Lane, 12 P.3d at 1065 (quoting Barela v. State, 787 P.2d 82, 83-84 (Wyo.1990)). [¶ 35] In this case, the comments made by the prosecutor were not improper. He did not personally vouch for the credibility of the witnesses. The prosecutor was simply pointing out that the witnesses had been forthright about their drug use notwithstanding the fact that it was difficult to discuss those matters in a public forum. He drew a reasonable inference from the evidence that the witnesses would have no motive to lie by confessing their drug use because use of drugs is illegal and is not accepted by general society. The prosecutor's comment was not improper.