Opinion ID: 2543261
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged misconduct during the selection phase

Text: Johnson raises one claim of prosecutorial misconduct during the selection phase of the penalty hearing. He contends that the prosecutor made remarks during his opening statement that referred to inadmissible evidence and were highly prejudicial, depriving him of a fair trial. We disagree. This court has stated that a prosecutor has a duty to refrain from making statements in opening arguments that cannot be proved at trial. [25] But [e]ven if the prosecutor overstates in his opening statement what he is later able to prove at trial, misconduct does not lie unless the prosecutor makes these statements in bad faith. [26] Here, the prosecutor summarized the evidence he planned to present during the selection phase of the hearing: You will hear about a phone call [Johnson] made, threatening to kill a young woman, a civilian. You will hear about a letter he wrote where he put a hit out on Scale. You heard that name in the trial, Mr. Anderson, named Scale. Johnson's counsel objected, claiming that the State failed to give adequate notice that it would be introducing evidence of the alleged threatening phone call or letter. After reviewing the relevant documents, the district court found that the State had provided inadequate notice to Johnson and the evidence was inadmissible. Johnson does not contend that the remarks were made in bad faith, nor is there evidence to support such a contention. But the question of prejudice remains. The prosecutor referred to serious allegations against Johnson, which carried some degree of prejudice because they suggested that Johnson would continue his violent criminal conduct, even while in prison. Yet the remarks were isolated, consisting of three sentences during a five-day selection phase. And there is no indication that the prosecutor again referred to these particular bad acts. Moreover, immediately after the State's opening statement the district court admonished the jury that opening statements are not evidence and should not be given evidentiary value. Given that the remarks were brief, were not made in bad faith, and occurred during a lengthy selection phase and the district court admonished the jurors, we conclude that any prejudice from these remarks was minimal.