Opinion ID: 1546569
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Improper Vouching Claim

Text: Not every error that occurs during trial is grounds for reversal. `Any error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded' as harmless error. [9] Pursuant to this standard and upon review of the record, it does not appear that Burroughs' substantial rights were affected. We provide attorneys with flexibility in closing arguments [10] that allows attorneys to move beyond the bounds of merely regurgitating evidence and allows attorneys to explain all legitimate inferences of innocence or guilt that flows from the evidence presented at trial. [11] Nevertheless, this flexibility is not without limitations. Improper vouching occurs when the prosecutor implies some personal superior knowledge, beyond that logically inferred from the evidence at trial. [12] After reviewing the record, we conclude the prosecutor's remarks in Burroughs' case did not breach those limitations. During closing, defense counsel stated, We have two different stories. We have a trained police officer that says there's nothing suggestive. We have two people that say the entire photo line up was suggestive. . . . So, what does the State do, they call the other officer that was there. (emphasis added). During rebuttal summation, the prosecutor asserted, Now, Mr. Figliola would have you just completely and utterly disregard the photo line-up because it suggested, and he began by, it would have you discount the testimony of two trained police officers and instead accept the version of what happened . . . offered by Blanche and [A.T.] (emphasis added). The prosecutor further remarked, What he's telling you is that Detective Hall and Detective Nowell sat on that witness stand, took an oath to tell you the truth and didn't. . . . If you're going to come into a courtroom and perjure yourself, don't you finish the job? When Burroughs' own counsel called the witnesses trained police officers, he opened the door and invited the prosecutor to use the same language. Although defense counsel's introduction of the allegedly prejudicial terminology justifies the prosecution's response and tends to lessen any unfairly prejudicial effect the statements might have had alone, [13] we do not wish to elevate the manner in which the prosecutor introduced the alleged prejudicial remarks over the actual meaning of the remarks. Therefore, we now shift our focus to determine whether the substance of the prosecutor's remarks improperly influenced Burroughs' substantial rights. We have found it appropriate to remedy improper vouching with a new trial when the prosecution implies that the jury must find that the State's witnesses committed perjury in order to acquit the defendant [14] or when the prosecution encourages the jury to disregard certain witnesses and buttress the credibility of others simply because of status. [15] The prosecutor in Burroughs' case neither implied the former nor encouraged the latter. The prosecutor did not attempt to shift the evidentiary burden or enhance trustworthiness simply because the witnesses were police officers; rather, the prosecutor's remarks highlighted the issue in questionwhether the photo identification process suggested the outcome to A.T. and produced only one logical inference from the evidence. The prosecution demonstrated to the jury that the police officers failed to coax A.T. into identifying both the defendant and the co-defendant therefore the photo lineup could not have suggested the outcome desired.