Opinion ID: 2088581
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the prosecution's closing argument

Text: Defendant contends that statements presented by the State to the jury during closing arguments misstated the law and shifted the burden of proof to the defense. The prosecution stated: [I]f you go back and yousay you come back with something other than a finding of guilty, what you're saying is, Mr. Barbaro, we didn't believe you.    Officer Becker, we don't believe you either. Defendant made no objections to these statements at trial nor did he address them in his post-trial motions. As a consequence, any error arising from the remarks was waived. People v. Enoch (1988), 122 Ill.2d 176, 185-87, 119 Ill.Dec. 265, 522 N.E.2d 1124. Even had this issue been preserved for consideration, closing arguments similar to those presented by the State have been allowed and found not prejudicial where the prosecution's version of the incident varies substantially from the version given by the defense. People v. Smith (1987), 158 Ill.App.3d 595, 600, 110 Ill.Dec. 593, 511 N.E.2d 770. In Smith, defense counsel objected to portions of the prosecution's closing arguments where counsel stated that in order to believe the defendant, the jury would have to believe everyone else was lying. The court found that such a statement was basically true, as the versions of the incident varied substantially between the prosecution and the defense. Thus, the trial court appropriately allowed the statements by the prosecution implying that the jury would have to believe one side over the other. See also People v. Alexander (1984), 127 Ill.App.3d 1007, 1015, 83 Ill.Dec. 651, 470 N.E.2d 1071 (court declined to hold closing statement reversible error where it was stated that it would be necessary to disbelieve each of the State witnesses in order to believe defendant where defendant's testimony contradicted that of the State's witnesses and the jury was not misled by such comments). In the instant case, the defendant's version of the occurrence differed considerably from that given by witnesses for the prosecution. Therefore, regardless of waiver, such comments were not prejudicial and not reversible error. Defendant further urges that such statements constituted plain error and that counsel's failure to preserve the record denied him effective assistance of counsel. The State's closing arguments complained of here would not justify the implication of the plain error doctrine, as the evidence is not closely balanced nor is the alleged statement of such magnitude to have deprived the accused a fair and impartial trial. ( People v. Mack (1984), 105 Ill.2d 103, 125, 85 Ill.Dec. 281, 473 N.E.2d 880; People v. Smalley (1984), 122 Ill.App.3d 70, 76-77, 77 Ill.Dec. 562, 460 N.E.2d 866.) We have previously disposed of defendant's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.