Opinion ID: 1721719
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Prejudicial Effect of Prosecutor's Arguments

Text: Before a reviewing court may declare the erroneous admission of evidence to have been harmless, or not prejudicial, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained. State v. Walters, 523 So.2d 811 (La.1988); State v. Green, 493 So.2d 1178 (La.1986); State v. Vessell, 450 So.2d 938 (La.1984); State v. Martin, 458 So.2d 454 (La.1984) (erroneous denial of admission of evidence); State v. Banks, 439 So.2d 407 (La.1983), later appeal, 482 So.2d 92 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986); State v. Landry, 414 So.2d 674 (La.1982); State v. Vaughn, 431 So.2d 358, 371, n. 8 (La.1982) (erroneous denial of admission of evidence); State v. Phagans, 412 So.2d 580 (La.1982); State v. Gibson, 391 So.2d 421 (La.1980); See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 828, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). This is the minimum safeguard that should be afforded in a case in which the improper introduction of evidence or facts may have affected the jury's verdict of guilt of first degree murder or its decision to recommend the death penalty. See, e.g., Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U.S. 249, 108 S.Ct. 1792, 100 L.Ed.2d 284 (1988), in which the Supreme Court held that because [i]t is important to avoid error in capital sentencing proceedings the harmless error rule set forth in Chapman v. California which held that if the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a constitutional error did not contribute to the verdict, the error is harmless and the verdict may standapplies to the erroneous introduction at a sentencing hearing of a psychiatrist's testimony regarding the future dangerousness of the accused, and that because defense counsel had not received adequate notice of the examination of the accused by that psychiatrist the accused had been deprived of his right to counsel, that the admission of that psychiatrist's testimony was not harmless under the Chapman test, and that the defendant's death sentence must be set aside. Id. We see no reason why this harmless error rule should not also apply to the erroneous and improper arguments of a prosecutor which present to the jury his inadmissible unsworn testimony to facts outside the record, not subject to cross-examination. Cf., South Carolina v. Gathers, ___ U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 2207, 104 L.Ed.2d 876 (1989) in which the United States Supreme Court affirmed the South Carolina Supreme Court's decision reversing a death sentence because of the improper closing argument of the prosecutor at the sentencing phase in which he read to the jury at length from a religious tract the victim was carrying and commented on personal qualities of the victim that he inferred from the slain man's possession of the religious tract and a voter registration card. Evidently, the majority of the high court considered the prosecutor's actions prejudicial per se or so clearly not harmless as to make any comment in that regard unnecessary. But see O'Connor, J. dissenting, 109 S.Ct. at 2216 (Because the [religious tract] was already in evidence without objection and could have been read by the jury even if the prosecutor never mentioned it, the prosecutor's reading of that document during his closing argument may constitute harmless error.) Applying the foregoing harmless error test, we cannot say that the prosecuting attorney's improper arguments to the jury were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The credibility of Kelly Herrell and Donald Harris, whose testimony was the only evidence linking Norvell Smith with the crime and identifying him as its author, was seriously questioned during the trial. Harris admitted that he was a coperpetrator of the attempted armed robbery that resulted in the killing. He acknowledged that he was testifying pursuant to a plea bargain by which the state would allow him to plead guilty to manslaughter, for which he could have received a sentence of no more than twenty-one years in prison. He admitted that his trial testimony exculpating Herrell and depicting Smith as the principal villain was different from the story he first told police in which Herrell was the mastermind of the Halloween mask robbery scheme. His excuse for changing his story at trial, viz., that his first story had been coerced by the police, was contradicted by one of the interrogating officers and was not corroborated by any other witness. Kelly Herrell inculpated Smith and Harris while denying any involvement on his part. In his own testimony, however, he placed himself at the scene of the crime before and during its commission. Furthermore, he admitted that he had gone to the victim's house to lend him a motorcycle helmet only minutes prior to the homicide and that he had spoken to Harris and Smith who were waiting in the vacant lot nearby. Norvell Smith took the stand and denied his involvement in the offense or his presence during its commission. His testimony was not controverted by anyone except Harris and Herrell. Lyle Spencer, the disinterested passerby, did not know Smith and could not identify him as one of the culprits. Smith testified that Harris, Herrell and the victim, Kenny Jackson, dealt drugs for the same drug dealer. He said that several hours prior to the crime and on the same day Harris and Herrell told him that they knew where they could get some drugs and asked him to join them. According to Smith, he refused, they became angry and he left their company. Although the state presented a reasonably strong case against the defendant if full credit is given to the testimony of Harris and Herrell, it is also a case in which honest, fair-minded jurors might very well have failed to convict the defendant as charged or to recommend the death penalty, in the absence of the prosecutor's improper arguments referring to evidence and facts outside the record, viz., that the state could have called two dozen additional witnesses to prove the defendant's guilt, that Mrs. Jackson said her son, the victim, had never been in trouble, and that Kelly Herrell's trial testimony was consistent with the statements he gave to the police. Furthermore, there is a reasonable possibility that the jury's decision to recommend the death penalty was contributed to by the prosecutor's other improper and borderline arguments, viz., that life in prison is not unpleasant or difficult, that the jury's decision to condemn Smith would deter future murders, and that the jury is not truly responsible for its life or death decision. Under these circumstances, it is completely impossible for us to say that the state has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecutor's improper comments did not contribute to the defendant's conviction and sentence of death.