Opinion ID: 2516990
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Did certain statements by the prosecutor during rebuttal closing argument constitute plain error?

Text: [¶ 14] Although she did not object to them below, the appellant contends in this appeal that certain statements of the prosecutor during rebuttal closing argument constituted plain error. Our standard of review in such instances is as follows: The general rule in Wyoming is that a failure to interpose a timely objection to improper argument is treated as a waiver, unless the prosecutor's misconduct is so flagrant as to constitute plain error, requiring reversal. Armstrong v. State, 826 P.2d 1106, 1115 (Wyo.1992). A plain error analysis requires the appellant to demonstrate the violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law, clearly reflected in the record, resulting in the abridgment of a substantial right of the party to his material prejudice. Arevalo v. State, 939 P.2d 228, 232 (Wyo.1997). We are reluctant to find plain error in closing arguments lest the trial court becomes required to control argument because opposing counsel does not object. James v. State, 888 P.2d 200, 207 (Wyo.1994) (quoting Taul v. State, 862 P.2d 649, 659 (Wyo.1993)). In analyzing claims of prosecutorial misconduct, we consider the prosecutor's argument in the context in which it was made and with regard to the evidence produced at trial. Taul v. State, 862 P.2d 649, 659 (Wyo.1993). Although counsel are allowed great latitude in the argument of cases, argument must be kept within the evidence. Dice v. State, 825 P.2d 379, 384 (Wyo.1992). Statements calculated to inflame, prejudice or mislead the jury are not permitted. Taul, 862 P.2d at 659. Montoya v. State, 971 P.2d 134, 136 (Wyo. 1998). [2] Reversal is required where a reasonable probability exists that, absent the error, a verdict more favorable to the appellant would have resulted. Szymanski v. State, 2007 WY 139, ¶ 27, 166 P.3d 879, 886 (Wyo. 2007). The burden of proving plain error is upon the appellant. Talley v. State, 2007 WY 37, ¶ 9, 153 P.3d 256, 260 (Wyo.2007). [¶ 15] The appellant contends that several statements made by the prosecutor during rebuttal closing argument violated two of her basic constitutional rights: that the prosecutor may not comment upon the defendant's exercise of her right to remain silent, and the prosecutor may not attempt to shift the burden of proof to the defendant. See Condra v. State, 2004 WY 131, ¶ 17, 100 P.3d 386, 390-91 (Wyo.2004); Tortolito v. State, 901 P.2d 387, 390-91 (Wyo.1995). The State counters with the argument that the prosecutor's statements were legitimate responses to defense counsel's arguments, and were legitimate comments about the state of the evidence. Because this all must be viewed in context, we will quote at length from defense counsel's closing argument, and from the State's rebuttal, with the challenged statements being highlighted: BY [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: . . . . So lets start there, lets talk about evidence, ladies and gentlemen, and lets talk about proof and lets talk about assumptions, presumptions, and hopes, and witnesses that you never heard or saw, and lets talk about the State's case. The State's case is this. They would have you believe that my client, who they've presented no evidence, would have any motive to do or to lie or that she's a known liar or is inconsistent or has lied in the past would be driving down the street, that she would get into a wreck, and then she would floor her car to 100 percent to get away from some sort of problem that she was in because she had consumed some amount of alcohol. The problem with that presupposition is really twofold. First of all, they have to convince you of that. In other words, they have to only call witnesses that support that. They have to get witnesses to say that version of events because if they don't they lose. And why do they lose? Because then the original wreck and the alcohol are not tied to the ultimate death of Madison Scalzo, then you must acquit according to the law. So what does the State do? They call basically two witnesses to support the proposition that my client got into a wreck, that she didn't lose control of the vehicle but that she fled the scene. [SP] was the first. [SP] says, oh, I remember like it was yesterday, I saw it in my rearview mirror, I am 100 percent sure, absolutely no question about it that this is what took place, she backed up and then she sped off. But we find out that only two days after the wreck  and this had not come out when Detective Wasson testified, first testified. But two days after the wreck she had spoke to Detective Wasson who is investigating the wreck. And what does she say? She says that she sees it in the rearview mirror, she sees the wreck, she thought the vehicle might have slowed, didn't think it came to a stop, and then it sounded like the motor revved up and it went on. . . . . Another aspect of that that's very interesting is that you heard Detective Wasson say that he had consulted with Mark Ziska who is with the police department. And that Mark Ziska is a crash reconstructionist that works for the Gillette Police Department. Interesting that we didn't find any testimony and never saw Mr. Ziska testify because after all if he's a crash reconstructionist and he was observing the scene, he was there that night, certainly he could have gotten up on the stand under oath and showed you the pictures and showed you where my client backed up. They don't call him. You know why? Because they know he wouldn't say that and that doesn't fit in with their case and that doesn't lead to a conviction, and then where are they because you've got to get a conviction, afterall [sic] something terrible has happened. Most troubling, even more than Mr. Ziska, however, is that we know there's yet another eyewitness named [LSW]. She was listed in the State's pretrial. Do we see her? She didn't testify. The State chose not to give you that evidence, and what do I ask Detective Wasson? Hey, you interviewed several people, didn't you? Yes. You interviewed [LSW]? Yes. And she said she never saw the vehicle stop. That, in fact, it slowed after the collision, roar of the engine, and it was off to the races. Why do you think the State would not want you to hear that witness, eyewitness testimony? Why do they cherry pick only the things that are good for them? And I'll tell you why and it's quite, so simple. Because they know if this is unintended acceleration they can't make their proximate cause and they lose the aggravated vehicular homicide case. . . . . The State doesn't want to talk about [unintended acceleration]. They are hoping that because of your overwhelming grief, just like mine, that you'll just kind of overlook the flaws in their case. You'll overlook the fact that they don't call witnesses. You'll overlook the fact that they don't talk about the physical evidence. You'll overlook the fact that there was an eyewitness that could have testified to something different. You'll overlook the idea that Mark Ziska didn't testify. That you'll overlook all of that because there must be a reckoning. Yet, the law forbids you to be governed by sympathy, prejudice, or public opinion. . . . . Another issue about the intoxication, ladies and gentlemen, is that  and once again it goes to, it goes to why didn't we hear from someone? And that is you heard [MM] testify, and he says, well, at 10 until 6 I saw her. She walked into the rec center, I chatted with her, nothing seemed up, I didn't smell any alcohol, she didn't seem intoxicated to me, she didn't seem to have any problem. . . . . By the same token Wasson works for the Gillette Police Department, and they certainly have an interest in the outcome of this case. Take a look around in the courtroom. There are at least six or eight different officers that are watching this closing argument. They certainly have an interest in the outcome of the case. What about the ER staff? Would they have an interest in the outcome of the case? If she smelled of alcohol, if she was slurring her words, if she seemed so intoxicated following this wreck, where are the ER staff? How come they're not called? . . . . BY [THE PROSECUTOR]: . . . . You get to decide who you believe. You get to decide who is credible. You get to decide who's got an interest in this in making those determinations. And does the fact that you only heard us call [SP] and [TM] mean there's got to be a reasonable doubt with respect to the facts? Absolutely not. Ladies and gentlemen, those jury instructions say you can find the proof of one fact beyond a reasonable doubt from one witness that you find believable. There is no minimum requirement. There is no rule that says that every single witness who was involved in the case has to come to court and testify about that. Can you imagine, ladies and gentlemen, if there was some evidence out there to establish that an EMT while rendering aid to LaDonna Carothers poured a beer in her mouth that somebody might have called that witness? Probably very likely you would have heard from that person. If there was evidence to establish that with respect to the telephone calls that she talked to Detective Wasson about actually got made and that there's a cell phone record documenting that cell phone call, do you think if that had actually happened there would be evidence to support that? Probably, you would have heard that. You heard the evidence from two eyewitnesses who watched her drive drown [sic] Brooks Avenue. You heard testimony from Detective Wasson who summarized the accident investigation. You're right, you didn't hear from Mark Ziska. Instead the State of Wyoming called [GB] who is a mechanical engineer who looked at all of the evidence, who examined the vehicle, who has specialized training and is an expert in this field, and interestingly enough is not sitting in the audience and is not a member of the Gillette Police Department. He is a person who has a very refined specific task and he was given the job of examining the evidence in an objective fashion and telling you what the facts mean. Would it have been helpful to hear Mark Ziska come in and say the same thing? Probably not. If Mark Ziska had something different to say do you think that somebody might have called him and had him say that? Probably so. . . . . Look at the evidence that you have and use your common sense and look about what you heard in the courtroom and don't start trying to decide if there's other stuff out there that might be because that's not your job. Your job is to evaluate what you heard in this courtroom and evaluate the witnesses you heard in this courtroom, and when you do that the evidence is very easy to interpret and the verdict is very easy to reach because what you will find is there is no doubt that the defendant was drinking that day. She even tells you how much she was drinking, the scientific evidence corroborates that. There's no doubt that she hit a parked car. There's no doubt she sped away from the scene. And, ladies and gentlemen, really the difficulty here with [Defense Counsel's] whole argument about unintended acceleration is there's no evidence even from the defendant that that's what happened. You heard Mr. Schmidt tell you that the key to this entire phenomenon, if you will, is that the driver has to say I was pushing down on what I thought was the brake and my car was careening out of control. And you heard her statement, you heard what she told Detective Wasson within an hour, an hour an a hour after the wreck. She didn't say she stepped on the wrong peddle [sic]. She said the car spontaneously, all by itself, it was touched or anything, it was some sort of high idle thing and it was going down the road at maximum throttle by itself. And even Mr. Schmidt had to tell you that's not unintended acceleration. (Emphasis added.) [¶ 16] We have quoted at such length from the closing arguments to show the context of the prosecutor's remarks in rebuttal. Most of those remarks were clearly directed at refuting defense counsel's allegations that the State purposefully hid evidence from the jury by not producing certain witnesses. The prosecutor was not suggesting that the appellant had a duty to call witnesses. Rather, he was explaining why the State called the witnesses that it did, and not others. In addition, the prosecutor's comment that there's no evidence even from the defendant that unintended acceleration caused the accident, was not a comment upon the appellant's right to remain silent, but was a comment about the contents of the statement that the appellant did give to the police. [¶ 17] Two cases clearly guide us to an affirmance on this issue. In Helm v. State, 1 P.3d 635, 641 (Wyo.2000), we found it proper for the State to comment upon the lack of factual support for the defendant's theory of the case. That is exactly what happened here. The appellant brought in an expert witness to explain to the jury the phenomenon known as pedal error or unintended acceleration. The point of the prosecutor's closing remarks was simply that there was insufficient evidence in the appellant's statement to police to support that theory. That is not an attempt to call attention to her decision not to testify, nor is it an attempt to shift the burden of proof to her. [¶ 18] Similarly, in Sturgis v. State, 932 P.2d 199, 205 (Wyo.1997), we concluded that, where a defendant chooses not to testify, but chooses to introduce into evidence her earlier statement to police, the door swings both ways, affording the prosecutor a similar opportunity to make some comment over what she said or neglected to say. As with the prosecutor's comments in Helm, this is not a comment upon the appellant's right not to testify. Id. We find no prosecutorial misconduct in the rebuttal closing argument. Did the district court abuse its discretion when it denied the appellant's motion to strike from the PSI the recommendations of the probation and parole agent who prepared it? [¶ 19] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-407(a)(ii) (LexisNexis 2007) requires state probation and parole agents to [i]nvestigate all cases referred by any court . . . and report to the court . . . in writing[.] One such investigation and report is the PSI mandated by W.R.Cr.P. 32(a) for all felony cases. The content of the report is dictated by W.R.Cr.P. 32(a)(2): (2) Report.  The report of the presentence investigation shall contain: (A) Information about the history and characteristics of the defendant, including prior criminal record, if any, financial condition, and any circumstances affecting the defendant's behavior that may be helpful in imposing sentence or in the correctional treatment of the defendant. (B) Verified information stated in a nonargumentative style containing an assessment of the financial, social, psychological, and medical impact upon, and cost to, any individual against whom the offense has been committed and attaching a victim impact statement as provided in W.S. 7-21-103 if the victim chooses to make one in writing. In any event the report shall state that the victim was advised of the right to make such a statement orally at the defendant's sentencing or in writing. If the victim could not be contacted, the report shall describe the efforts made to contact the victim. (C) Unless the court orders otherwise, information concerning the nature and extent of non-prison programs and resources available for the defendant; and (D) Such other information as may be required by the court. (Emphasis added.) [¶ 20] The victim impact statement provided by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-21-103 (Lexis-Nexis 2007) may include but shall not be limited to the matters listed in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-21-102(c): . . . . (i) An explanation of the nature and extent of any physical, psychological or emotional harm or trauma suffered by the victim; (ii) An explanation of the extent of any economic loss or property damage suffered by the victim; (iii) The need for and extent of restitution and whether the victim has applied for or received compensation for loss or damage; and (iv) The victim's recommendation for an appropriate disposition. [¶ 21] We have quoted these statutes and court rules at length to show the victim impact evidence that is to be made available to the sentencing judge, and to contrast the information that should be provided by the probation and parole agent with the information that may be provided by a victim. [3] In the instant case, the deceased victim's father and brother produced written statements that were included in the presentence investigation report, and the victim's mother testified at the sentencing hearing. The appellant did not object to any of those statements, and does not now appeal their inclusion in the sentencing process. She did, however, object to the following portion of the Evaluation section of the PSI written by the probation and parole agent, and she filed an Objection and Motion to Strike Presentence Investigation Report: Madison Scalzo was not just someone else's child. She was a sweet young girl with big dreams and an even bigger heart. The silence that has now replaced her laughter will be a constant reminder to her family and loved ones that she is forever gone. The world will never know what Madison could have accomplished in her lifetime. All that she was and could have become was violently snuffed out by the reckless arrogance of a woman who made the self-involved choice to drive drunk. This Writer saved the following [Gillette] News-Record clipping from 10-24-07, in anticipation of this report, so as to impress upon the reader the personality, humanity and innocence of Madison (all of which instantly struck this Writer upon reading it). These words, written by Madison's family so soon after her death, will be the final thoughts in this report: Our beautiful angel Madison was born on [D.O.B. omitted] in Alamosa, Colorado. Madison went to Pre-K school at Cottonwood Christian School in Alamosa, Colorado. In 2001, Madison moved to Gillette, Wyoming and enrolled in Wagonwheel Elementary. She loved getting Laffy Taffy from Mr. Dave Freeland, her favorite principal. Madison dearly loved all the teachers and staff members at the school. Madison was known for her kindness. She thought everyone should always be nice to each other. Growing up, Madison and her brother, Jasen, were inseparable. Madison enjoyed `mothering' her younger brother, Gibson. Madison had a passion for playing basketball. She always strived to be the best ball player she could be. This past year, she started raising money to buy her own salon chair and dreamed of some day owning her own beauty salon  if she did not make it as a pop star and singer. To date, she had $80 saved for her chair. Madison was in swing choir at school. She had also attended many cheerleading camps. Madison loved Ladybugs and considered herself lucky every time she caught a live Ladybug. Lately, she took a liking to collecting frogs. She loved singing so much that, on family Karaoke nights, she would not let anyone else hold the microphone. Madison was not one to sit around; she was always on the go; from making iced coffee with mommy to going to church with daddy every Sunday. Madison was a `giver.' Even in the event of her tragic death, some of her organs were given to someone special that was in need. (Emphasis in original.) [¶ 22] In her objection and motion to strike, the appellant contended that the above-quoted passage, rather than being informative and nonargumentative, was nonobjective and inflammatory. The motion was denied without a hearing, but with the following explanation: The court is going to deny the motion without argument as the court's review finds that the offending, alleged offending information that's in the evaluation and recommendation, which the court gives wide latitude to probation officers to make the recommendations and comments that they feel is appropriate. The rest of the report appears to be nonargumentative and verified and to the extent that it's not verified and we have questions about it we can correct those on the record today. So I'm going to enter an order denying the motion to strike the presentence investigation. The appellant made no further objections in regard to the motion, and offered no additions, corrections, or explanations as to the report. [¶ 23] Our standard for the review of alleged errors during sentencing is as follows: Sentencing decisions are normally within the discretion of the trial court. Hamill v. State, 948 P.2d 1356, 1358 (Wyo.1997). A sentence will not be disturbed because of sentencing procedures unless the defendant can show an abuse of discretion, procedural conduct prejudicial to him, and circumstances which manifest inherent unfairness and injustice, or conduct which offends the public sense of fair play. Smith v. State, 941 P.2d 749, 750 (Wyo. 1997). An error warrants reversal only when it is prejudicial and it affects an appellant's substantial rights. The party who is appealing bears the burden to establish that an error was prejudicial. Candelaria v. State, 895 P.2d 434, 439-40 (Wyo.1995) (citations omitted) [ overruled in part on other grounds by Allen v. State, 2002 WY 48, 43 P.3d 551 (Wyo.2002)]; see also Robinson v. Hamblin, 914 P.2d 152, 155 (Wyo.1996). Lee v. State, 2001 WY 129, ¶ 10, 36 P.3d 1133, 1138 (Wyo.2001). In respect to erroneous information contained in a PSI, we have said: Smith's contention of prejudice is not supported by any evidence that the court relied on the erroneous information, and, in fact, is contradicted by the sentencing judge's accepting his corrections and then imposing a sentence less than that agreed to by Smith in his plea agreement. Wayt v. State, 912 P.2d [1106], 1109 [(Wyo. 1996)] (appellant bears the burden of establishing this reliance). Nor do we find that sentencing Smith after learning of the report's severe deficiencies and without ordering a new report is improper and requires remanding for a new sentencing hearing. A sentencing judge's discretion permits him to order a new report or simply to accept corrections and proceed, as the judge did in this case. See Mehring v. State, 860 P.2d 1101, 1117-18 (Wyo. 1993). As for Smith's request that we set standards to ensure accurate, nonargumentative presentence reports, our standard of judicial discretion accomplishes this objective while giving the sentencing judge the greatest amount of flexibility to exercise the appropriate action towards these kinds of transgressions by the State. Smith v. State, 941 P.2d 749, 750 (Wyo.1997). We have also declined to reverse a criminal conviction where the appellant has failed to prove that the district court relied on the allegedly erroneous or inflammatory comments of the probation and parole agent, where the writer's comments merely summarized what was apparent elsewhere in the report and provided the rationale for the agent's sentencing recommendation. Doherty v. State, 2006 WY 39, ¶ 34, 131 P.3d 963, 974 (Wyo.2006) (quoting Janssen v. State, 2005 WY 123, ¶ 18, 120 P.3d 1006, 1011 (Wyo.2005)). [¶ 24] Applying this very broad discretionary test, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion to strike. We do so less from approbation of the probation and parole agent's comments, which we find extreme to say the least, than from these facts: (1) there has been no showing that the district court relied upon the comments in deciding upon a sentence; (2) the comments basically repeated what was already contained in the victim impact portion of the report and in the mother's statements in court at sentencing; and (3) the sentence imposed was less than that requested by the State, which suggests that the court was not inflamed by the comments. [4] Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the appellant was prejudiced by the written comments of the probation and parole agent. At the same time, we would caution the writers of presentence investigation reports to limit those reports to the matters outlined in W.R.Cr.P. 32(a)(2). It certainly makes more sense not to cross the line than it does to cross the line and hope prejudice is not found to have resulted therefrom.