Opinion ID: 883122
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Did Wilder's attorney prejudice the jury by making improper remarks while questioning witnesses and during closing argument?

Text: Buhr offers numerous examples of allegedly prejudicial comments by Wilder's counsel. Many of the examples involve counsel's introducing questions with comments such as I am sure after three days of deposition and all this questioning, you are probably getting tired of lawyers questioning you and Doctor, you can characterize it any way you want, but I want to talk about the facts. Others involve comments Buhr contends were arguments directed to the jury's hometown feelings of loyalty, the jury's resentment of the length of the trial, and the attorney's use of a deposition. Buhr asserts that the cumulative effect of these comments impaired his right to a fair trial and, as a result, that the District Court erred in denying his motion for a new trial. Again, we disagree. Improper argument requires reversal only when prejudice has resulted which prevented a fair trial. Moralli, 839 P.2d at 1292 (citation omitted). Unless a level of prejudice can be shown that manifestly precludes a fair trial, then there is no reversible error. Whiting v. State (1991), 248 Mont. 207, 220-21, 810 P.2d 1177, 1186 (citation omitted). The trial judge is in the best position to determine the prejudicial effect of an attorney's conduct. Kuhnke v. Fisher (1987), 227 Mont. 62, 68, 740 P.2d 625, 628. Here, Buhr advances a number of comments made by Wilder's counsel over the course of a six-week trial. Buhr objected to many of the comments and, in some cases, succeeded in having the question or comment rephrased or stricken. In other instances, he did not object. Moreover, the jury was instructed that, regarding any question to which an objection was sustained, you must not conjecture as to what the answer might have been or as to the reason for the objection; nor must you draw any inference from the question itself. Given this instruction, the length of the trial, and the limited number of allegedly improper comments made, we conclude that these comments made by Wilder's attorney did not prejudice the jury or impair Buhr's right to a fair trial.