Opinion ID: 2029523
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Aligning Self with the Jury and Character Attacks

Text: Mayhorn argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct by stating. This is kind of foreign for all of us, I believe, because we're not really accustomed to this drug world and drug dealing. Mayhorn objected. We have held that a prosecutor's statement describing a defendant as not being from the same world as the jurors is not misconduct when these comments did little more than prepare the jury for evidence of an unfamiliar world involving drugs. State v. Robinson, 604 N.W.2d 355, 363 (Minn.2000), denial of habeas corpus affirmed by Robinson v. Crist, 278 F.3d 862 (8th Cir.2002). But it is improper for a prosecutor to highlight the defendant's racial or socioeconomic status as a way to put evidence in context. See State v. Ray, 659 N.W.2d 736, 746-47 (Minn.2003) (noting that prosecutors should avoid inviting jurors to apply racial and socio-economic considerations). Although the challenged statement refers explicitly to this drug world, we note our concern that there may have been instances in this trial in which the state attempted to highlight cultural differences between the predominantly white jury [6] and the defendant. For example, at one point during cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Mayhorn, who is African American, a question about the white girls that you were hanging around with in Fargo-Moorhead. Furthermore, the prosecutor appears to have used impeachment devices as a thinly-veiled character attack. During cross-examination of Mayhorn, the prosecutor asked him nearly 40 questions about his various girlfriends and baby mamas, including one series of questions comprising more than five pages of trial transcript. The prosecutor repeatedly asked if Mayhorn's girlfriends knew about each other, and when he responded in the negative the prosecutor asked if this meant Mayhorn was lying to his girlfriends. Mayhorn twice objected to this line of questioning. In closing argument, the prosecutor stated [Mayhorn] admits that he is a habitual liar, based in part on his responses to these questions. By voluntarily testifying in his own behalf, the accused opens up only the issue of his credibility, not his general character. State v. Sharich, 297 Minn. 19, 23, 209 N.W.2d 907, 911 (1973). Under Minn. R. Evid. 608(b), specific instances of the conduct of a witness may be inquired into on cross-examination if they are probative of the witness's truthfulness or untruthfulness. The New Hampshire Supreme Court has held that [a]lthough illegal and immoral, adultery do[es] not relate directly to truthfulness. State v. Moses, 143 N.H. 461, 726 A.2d 250, 253 (1999) (citation and quotation marks omitted; second alteration in original). We agree that adultery is not probative of a witness's truthfulness, and conclude that the same rationale applies to an unmarried person involved in more than one romantic relationship. We therefore conclude that the prosecutor engaged in improper impeachment and that this line of questioning amounted to an attack on Mayhorn's character, not his credibility. Finally, even to the extent it is permissible to describe a drug world of which the jury is not a part, it does not follow that a prosecutor may describe herself and the jury as a group of which the defendant is not a part. A prosecutor is a minister of justice whose obligation is to guard the rights of the accused as well as to enforce the rights of the public. Salitros, 499 N.W.2d at 817 (quoting ABA Standards for Criminal Justice § 3-1.1 cmt. at 3.7 (2d ed.1979)). On a more basic level, a prosecutor is not a member of the jury, so to use we and us is inappropriate and may be an effort to appeal to the jury's passions. We conclude that the prosecutor committed misconduct when she attacked Mayhorn's character and aligned herself with the jury.