Opinion ID: 734867
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reference to Duran's Incarceration

Text: 21 During re-direct examination of prosecution witness Jack Tolson, Duran's domestic partner, the prosecutor asked, how often did you visit Mr. Duran, let me ask you, how often have you visited him since this incident took place? Defense counsel objected to this line of questioning, but the objection was overruled. Tolson testified that he had visited Duran several times a week. During cross-examination of defense witness Terry Keyser, who stated that she was a very close friend of Duran, the prosecutor asked, and have you talked to him in jail since he has been in custody? Defense counsel did not object to the question. Finally, in closing argument, the prosecutor characterized the defense argument as a call to allow Duran to go home: You should allow him to go home whenever you return your verdict, because what he did, any reasonable person in a like situation would do. Again, defense counsel did not object. 22 Duran argues that these questions and statement by the prosecutor constituted prosecutorial misconduct in that they informed the jury that Duran was incarcerated prior to trial and created an inference that Duran was probably guilty of the offense or was a violent person who needed to be incarcerated. We agree and hold that the prosecution's reference to Duran's incarceration constituted prosecutorial misconduct. 23