Opinion ID: 4237534
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Comments about defense counsel and

Text: defense theory ¶98 Hulsey maintains that throughout the closing argument, the prosecutor continued to imply that defense counsel was a liar and made other personal attacks. During closing argument, the prosecution invoked the story of Don Quixote and compared the defense’s theory to tilting at windmills. He repeatedly analogized the defense’s evidence in the case to the imaginary monsters in that story. He stated that the defense wanted the jury to “[go] to Neverland” and enter the “Land of Oz.” Hulsey unsuccessfully moved for mistrial based on the “unethical behavior.” ¶99 While commentary about the defense’s theory is common, “[a]n argument that impugns the integrity or honesty of opposing counsel is . . . improper.” Id. at 86 ¶ 59; see also State v. Lynch (Lynch II), 238 Ariz. 84, 96–97 ¶¶ 28–29 (2015) (illustrating improper commentary towards counsel as suggesting defense counsel fabricated evidence), rev’d on other grounds, Lynch III, 136 S. Ct. 1818 (2016); cf. State v. Amaya-Ruiz, 166 Ariz. 152, 171– 72 (1990) (no error where prosecutor referred to defense as “smoke screen”). The prosecutor’s comments equating defense counsel to Don Quixote were different from those discussing defense theories. The prosecution impugned defense counsel’s integrity by suggesting he was purposely leading the jury on a make-believe expedition. See Hughes, 193 Ariz. at 86 ¶ 59. These improper statements, however, were brief and on this record we cannot say that they affected the jury’s verdict, especially in light of the instruction to the jury that counsel’s arguments are not evidence. See Newell, 212 Ariz. at 403 ¶ 67. ¶100 Hulsey raises an additional unobjected-to-claim—that the prosecution personally attacked defense counsel regarding a rhetorical statement made by defense counsel about the attempted first degree murder instruction. The prosecutor pointed out the peculiarity of defense 31 STATE V. HULSEY Opinion of the Court counsel interjecting himself into his closing argument by stating that he did not know what the instruction meant. The prosecution questioned the relevance of such a statement. This exchange was not an improper attack on defense counsel constituting fundamental error.