Opinion ID: 2136070
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Closing arguments of prosecutor.

Text: During the course of the closing argument, the prosecutor made the following statement: `And Tom Perlewitz tapped me on the shoulder and said he's lying.' The argument was not recorded but the reporter indicated that the statement occurred when reference was made to defendant's testimony that while on the airplane he had not told Officer Perlewitz he had been back to Milwaukee. This was apparently when the prosecutor was urging the jury to disregard the defendant's testimony in his own behalf and after alluding to the falsus in uno instruction. Defense counsel immediately objected and the court said: The objection is sustained and the jury is instructed to disregard that statement completely, the same as though it had not been said. The district attorney is not a witness, he is not testifying, and you are to disregard any statement made by Mr. Klinkowitzit's improper. The defendant's motion for a mistrial based on this remark and on the earlier references to Johnson not making a statement to the police was denied. The court stated: A mistrial is reserved for the gravest of occurrence that would interfere with a fair continuance of the trial, and I do not think that would apply to the incident referred toalthough I do agree that the latter situation should not have occurred and I deplore that it did occur. The prosecutor should have known better than to relate to the jury what transpired during the progress of the trial so far as any conversation he had with a witness is concerned. And I think with that, the record is sufficiently clear of any prejudicial error, so that the motion for mistrial should be denied. It stands denied, and I have stated the reason. I do not consider it of such gravity as to affect the outcome of the trial, so far as the jury verdict is concerned. I think the record is clear as to your motion for mistrial, both of them. The issue of improper remarks by counsel in closing arguments comes up frequently. The state concedes that the remark by the district attorney was error. Thus the question again is whether the remark can be considered reversible error. Generally, whether remarks of witnesses or an attorney have such a prejudicial effect that a new trial should be granted is a question of fact. [11] Where the remark is of such a nature that it does not go to the issue of guilt, as a confession by the accused does, it should be considered in the context of the other facts of the case. [12] The standard of review is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion for mistrial because of claimed prejudicial argument to the jury. [13] It is clear in the record that since the police officer contradicted the defendant's version of the testimony, the remark he's lying added little. It is not a claim of perjury against an uncontradicted witness. In view of the trial court's admonition to the jury and the weight of the evidence against the defendant, we conclude that this particular remark, under the circumstances of the case, is not so prejudicial that the trial court abused its discretion in not granting a mistrial. By the Court. Judgment and order affirmed.