Opinion ID: 2335616
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prosecutor's Prejudicial Statement

Text: The second issue is whether the trial court erred by not declaring a mistrial based on an allegedly improper and unduly prejudicial statement by the prosecutor. Wilson claims that he was denied a fair and impartial trial when the prosecutor, during his opening statement, referred to evidence that was later ruled inadmissible. Because Wilson failed to raise this issue before the trial court, we review for plain error. [17] Plain errors are errors that are so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the trial process. [18] A prosecutor represents all the people, including the defendant and must seek justice, not merely convictions. [19] In pursuing these goals, a prosecutor may not misrepresent evidence. [20] Here, in his opening statement the prosecutor referred to Rabari's positive identification of Wilson and Wilkinson during a photo line-up. The trial court later ruled that the photo identification was inadmissible. Wilson did not request a curative instruction or move for a mistrial, however. In our view, the prosecutor's reference to the photo line-up identification does not rise to the level of plain error. At the time the improper reference was made, the evidence had not yet been ruled inadmissible. Except for that reference during the prosecutor's opening statement, there was only one other (unexpected) reference to the photo line-up identification. That latter reference came from Rabari, who, responding to a question from the State whether Rabari knew if the police had arrested anyone on the day of the first robbery, stated that an officer showed [him a] picture. Defense counsel objected and a sidebar conference ensued. Counsel for the State explained that his question was not a line-up question, that he expected Rabari's answer to be simply no and that he had not anticipated that Rabari would bring up the photo line-up in his response. Moreover, the references to the photo identification made by the State and by Rabari were cumulative because Wilson was also identified by Wilkinson (his coconspirator) and by Stanton. Therefore, the prosecutor's statement did not constitute plain error.