Opinion ID: 1244705
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: prosecutor's reference to defendant as mad dog

Text: In his closing argument to the jury, the prosecutor, referring to Brown and the three other defendants, stated, There isn't one of us here who knows how we would react in a situation like that with four mad dogs out there beating on someone. Defendant objected to this statement shortly after it was made. He argues that the prosecutor's comment mandates reversal of his convictions. As we have frequently noted, Counsel for both sides have `considerably more freedom in closing argument' and `a right to discuss fully from their standpoints the evidence and the inferences and deductions arising therefrom.' State v. Parsons, 781 P.2d 1275, 1284 (Utah 1989) (quoting State v. Lafferty, 749 P.2d 1239, 1255 (Utah 1988) (quoting State v. Valdez, 513 P.2d 422, 426 (Utah 1973))). Prosecutors engage in misconduct, however, when they assert personal knowledge of the facts in issue or express personal opinion in the form of unsworn testimony that tends to exploit the influence of the prosecutor's office and undermine the objective detachment that should separate a lawyer from the cause being argued. Parsons, 781 P.2d at 1284 (citing Lafferty, 749 P.2d at 1255; ABA Standards for Criminal Justice § 3-5.8 (2d ed. 1980)). Referring to a defendant as a mad dog is the type of personal invective that reflects a lack of objective detachment a prosecutor should maintain in carrying out prosecutorial responsibilities. It should not be part of the prosecutor's rhetoric on remand. However, because we reverse for other reasons, we do not decide if the comment was sufficiently egregious to warrant reversal.