Opinion ID: 2461850
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: whether the prosecutor's conduct during closing argument was reversible error.

Text: Appellant argues that many comments made by the Commonwealth during the closing argument at the guilty phase were improperly prejudicial. The prosecutor told the jury that appellant had walked a demonic and satanic trail and made other references to religion. He also stated that he wished there were more graphic evidence such as the smell of blood and the ability to watch Mrs. Hamlin search for her husband. The prosecutor then began crying and told the jury that he represented the Commonwealth and the victims of crimes. However, as we have stated before, [o]utrageous conduct warrants stronger words than might otherwise be justified. Timmons v. Commonwealth, Ky., 555 S.W.2d 234, 241 (1977). We find that the prosecutor did not exceed the reasonable latitude allowed in persuading the jurors that the matter should not be dealt with lightly. Lynem v. Commonwealth, Ky., 565 S.W.2d 141, 145 (1978). We hold that any error committed by the prosecutor was harmless to appellant when striking the balance between disciplining the prosecutor on the one hand, and the interest of the prompt administration of justice and the interests of the victims on the other. United States v. Hastings, 461 U.S. 499, 509, 103 S.Ct. 1974, 1981, 76 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983). [T]here can be no such thing as an error free, perfect trial, and that the Constitution does not guarantee such a trial. Id., at 508, 509, 103 S.Ct. at 1980. The question a reviewing court must ask is this: absent the prosecutor's [conduct], is it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have returned a verdict of guilty? Id., at 510, 511, 103 S.Ct. at 1981. We believe after reviewing the record that the jury would have returned the same verdict of guilty even without the prosecutor's comments. Now we turn to a consideration of the issues from the trial's sentencing phase.