Opinion ID: 1155448
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Powell's Appearance in Shackles During the Penalty Phase

Text: During both the guilt phase and the penalty phase of the trial, Powell exhibited disruptive and threatening behavior. The first outburst by Powell occurred during the guilt phase of the trial when one of the prosecutors informed the court that Powell had made derogatory remarks regarding a witness' sexual preference as the witness was walking to the stand. The judge declined to make a direct order, because he had not heard the comments himself. The judge suggested that defense counsel speak to Powell, whereupon Powell stated, Mr. Seaton has commented on me and f____ me in my a____ two or three different times since I have been in [the] courtroom now. Now, that's out of line. Now, you admonish him because of his outrageous behavior. The judge then enjoined everyone from making any personal comments about any of the parties, counsel or any other officers of the court. Within minutes, one of the prosecutors informed the court that Powell was making inappropriate comments, which were not specified, to the prosecutors. Powell was admonished again. [6] During the penalty phase of the trial, Powell angrily interrupted the testimony of a former neighbor, accusing the witness of lying. The court recessed early for lunch, admonishing Powell to cool off. After court resumed, but before the jury was brought in, the court stated: We observed, for the record, that Mr. Powell reacted angrily to the testimony of his former neighbor, Bob Yoho, the individual who knew him from his home town. Rather than allow the defendant to continue with his verbal outburst, the court took a recess for lunch.... Now, for the record, we have had some additional developments since we broke for lunch; is that correct? The bailiff then informed the court that when Powell was told he would remain in leg shackles (as apparently had been decided in chambers), he looked at the officers and said, What are you looking at, you pig scumbag, and Before this is over I'll get one of you. Take off your badge and your gun, I'll whip your a____, and I am quicker than I seem to be, or I'm quicker than I appear. The bailiff told the court that Powell went on to say Before this is over, I'll get your eye, I'll take your eye. One of the prosecutors informed the court that when she came back from the lunch break, Powell made remarks to her of a sexual nature, and stated, If they want to see violence, I'll show them violence. The court ordered Powell to be put in leg and arm restraints for the remainder of the penalty phase. Later in the penalty phase, defense counsel requested that the shackles be removed prior to Powell testifying in order to avoid prejudicing the jury. The court ordered Powell to remain in hand and leg shackles, explaining that the ruling was based on Powell's outbursts and his hair-trigger temper which resulted in the need to protect the safety of the jury and court personnel. The defense then requested alternatively that Powell be unshackled but accompanied by law enforcement personnel while he was on the witness stand. The court asked the bailiff if that arrangement was acceptable to him, and the bailiff indicated that he thought Powell should be in leg shackles because of the close proximity of the witness stand to the bench and the jury. The court then ruled that Powell's hands and arms would be unshackled but that the leg shackles would remain. The leg shackles could not be seen by the jury while Powell was on the witness stand. During Powell's testimony, the bailiff sat in the jury box. Powell asserts that it was error for the district court to force him to appear in shackles during the penalty phase of the trial and to be accompanied by law enforcement personnel. The standard for restraint during the penalty phase is elucidated in Duckett v. State, 104 Nev. 6, 752 P.2d 752 (1988). In Duckett, this court stated that the right of a defendant to be free from shackles during the guilt phase of the trial is designed to protect the presumption of innocence. Id. at 11, 752 P.2d at 755. During the penalty phase, there is no longer a presumption of innocence and therefore the constitutional guarantee to be free of prison garb and shackles no longer exists. Id. During the penalty phase, public safety concerns are to be afforded greater significance. Id. The decision concerning restraint of the defendant during the penalty phase of the trial is within the sound discretion of the trial court, after balancing the state's interests for safety against the interests of the defendant. Id. The court's decision will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. Id. In Duckett, this court stated that the defendant stood convicted of a brutal murder of two people, for which the death penalty could be imposed, and he might have concluded that he had nothing to lose from further acts of violence. Id. at 12, 752 P.2d at 755. The facts in this case demonstrate an even greater need for security than the facts in Duckett. Here, Powell threatened to poke out the eyes of law enforcement officers, made sexual remarks to a prosecutor, harassed a witness and threatened to show [the court] violence. We hold that it was not an abuse of discretion to shackle Powell during the penalty phase of the trial.