Opinion ID: 2085821
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Alleged Prosecutorial Misconduct in the Closing Argument

Text: Defendant asserts that several comments made by the prosecutor constitute misconduct and warrant the reversal of his convictions. While we agree that certain remarks by the prosecutor were improper, on the facts of this case the prosecutorial misconduct does not warrant the reversal of defendant's convictions. Generally in evaluating a properly preserved claim of prosecutorial misconduct, we first determine whether the prosecutor engaged in misconduct and then whether under all of the circumstances the prosecutor's misconduct placed the defendant in a position of grave peril to which he should not have been subjected. Zenthofer v. State, 613 N.E.2d at 34; Lopez v. State, 527 N.E.2d at 1125. Whether or not the prosecutor has placed defendant in a position of grave peril is measured by the probable persuasive effect of any misconduct on the jury's decision, and whether there were repeated instances of misconduct which would evidence a deliberate attempt to improperly prejudice the defendant. Id. To preserve an issue regarding the propriety of a closing argument for appeal, a defendant must do more than simply make a prompt objection to the argument. Defendant must also request an admonishment, and if further relief is desired, defendant must move for a mistrial. Zenthofer v. State, 613 N.E.2d at 34; Brown v. State, 572 N.E.2d 496, 498 (Ind.1991); Dresser v. State, 454 N.E.2d 406, 407-08 (Ind.1983). If the trial court gives the requested admonishment, generally any error is deemed cured. Id. at 408. Failure to request an admonishment or move for a mistrial results in waiver of the issue. Zenthofer v. State, 613 N.E.2d at 34. Generally this is so, even if the court has overruled a timely objection. Dresser v. State, 454 N.E.2d at 407. Here, although defendant objected to the arguments set out below, he only requested an admonishment on one occasion and that request was granted. He did not follow this up with a request for a mistrial. In all other instances, although defendant objected, the court overruled his objections, and he did not press the objection further, request an admonishment, or move for a mistrial. Defendant, therefore, has waived his right to review of the prosecutor's comments. Even if, however, defendant had properly preserved these issues, a reversal based on prosecutorial misconduct is not warranted.
Defendant's first allegation regarding prosecutorial misconduct is based on argument by counsel that defendant's participation in the crimes was motivated by his desire to become a member of a gang. In a statement made to the police, they asked defendant about Newton and Duane and whether they had made any comments about Fly and the gang the night of the murder. Defendant responded that Newton and Duane were pretty close, and that after the killing they were saying they had to prove to each other they had the heart to kill somebody. (R. at 525-28.) Then, at trial, although defendant denied that Newton and Duane were in a gang or that he wanted to be in their gang or group, he admitted that they called themselves Fly, a family, and a family of friends, and that they had initials that stand for Fly tatooed on their hands. He also showed familiarity with gang terms and procedures. Specifically, he testified that a wannabe was someone who wanted to be in a gang, and that, to get into a gang, you were required to do things for the gang members. (R. at 683-84.) After eliciting this testimony without objection, the State made the following comments during closing argument: There's another one [instruction] in here that will tell you that the State of Indiana does not have to prove motive, and it's correct, but I think you got a glimpse of this motive yesterday. A glimpse in the fact that maybe Chad Wright doesn't have the guts to personally pull the trigger, but he's got the guts to show the other gang members that he'll take them there. Counsel for Defendant: I object to the use of the phrase, other gang members, Your Honor. There was no evidence that Mr. Wright is a member of a gang, and I'd ask that that remark be stricken. That is not supported by the evidence. The Court: The term, other gang members will go out. The jury will disregard that. Go ahead, Mr. Arnold. Counsel for the State: I think you saw what's going on there. You don't start out that way, you start out as a look out, you start out as a driver, you're a wannabe. You want to get in a gang, you want to be with the rest of the guys. Counsel for the Defendant: Again, Your Honor, I will object. There was no testimony as to any of that on Mr. Wright's part. None. And I would ask that that remark be stricken. The Court: The last objection is overruled. Go ahead, Mr. Arnold. (R. at 733-34.) In light of defendant's statement to the police and his testimony on cross-examination, which was admitted without objection, there was an adequate foundation to support the prosecutor's argument. Although, of course, defendant did not admit that he willingly participated in the crime because he was a wannabe, his testimony showed a familiarity with gang procedure that, together with all of the other evidence, supports an inference that his participation as a driver was motivated at least in part by a desire to become a member of the Fly gang to which Newton and Duane belonged. The prosecutor's argument was not without foundation and did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct. In fact, we have rejected a similar claim of prosecutorial misconduct where the evidence of gang membership was no stronger. See Dresser v. State, 454 N.E.2d at 408.
Defendant also argues that the prosecutor improperly commented about defendant's failure to call as a witness his girlfriend whom he saw after the shooting and who, according to the prosecutor, could have testified as to whether defendant was upset after the shooting as he claimed. It is not improper in closing argument to focus on the uncontradicted nature of the State's case. Isaacs v. State, 673 N.E.2d 757, 764 (Ind. 1996). It is, however, improper to suggest, as the prosecutor did in this case, that defendant has the burden of proof in a criminal case by inquiring in closing argument why the defendant did not call a witness to testify on his behalf. Chubb v. State, 640 N.E.2d 44, 48 (Ind.1994). Nevertheless, here, the court had preliminarily instructed the jury that defendant was presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that defendant was not required to present any evidence or prove his innocence. The court's final instructions again reminded the jury that the State has the burden of proving defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In light of these instructions, the weight of the evidence, and the de minimis nature of this impropriety, the prosecutor's comment certainly did not place defendant in a position of grave peril. Zenthofer v. State, 613 N.E.2d at 34.
Defendant also argues that it was improper for the prosecutor during his rebuttal, and in response to defendant's suggestion that Turner was going to make a deal with the State after the trial and therefore was not credible, to respond as follows: I guess we're back to trying Scott Turner. Let me tell you something, I'll take care of Scott Turner, and what I decide to do will be the right thing. Leave that in my hands. (R. at 763.) We agree with defendant that this comment was improper in that the prosecutor was suggesting that the jury should simply trust him because he was the prosecutor. We have previously emphasized that a prosecutor is not entitled to play upon his position as a public servant to obtain unfair advantage in a criminal trial. Craig v. State, 267 Ind. 359, 370 N.E.2d 880, 884 (1977). The prosecutor's argument on this point, however, was fleeting, and the trial court in both its preliminary and final instructions advised the jury that statements and comments by counsel are not evidence. In its final instructions the court also emphasized that it is the duty of a juror to decide a case only on the evidence given in court. While it would have been better also to have admonished the jury with respect to the specific statement made by the prosecutor here, defendant did not request such an admonishment. The prosecutorial misconduct here did not place defendant in a position of grave peril.