Opinion ID: 1898380
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: Were the prosecutor's opening and closing remarks so inflammatory as to deprive defendant of a fair trial?

Text: In State v. Williams, supra, 113 N.J. 393, 550 A. 2d 1172, we reiterated our long-standing commitment to the proposition that [a] prosecutor's remarks and actions must at all times be consistent with his or her duty to ensure that justice is achieved. Absolute adherence to this duty is stringently compelled in capital cases where the penalty is death. Id. at 448, 550 A. 2d 1172 (citing State v. Biegenwald, supra, 106 N.J. at 39, 524 A. 2d 130; State v. Rose, supra, 112 N.J. at 524, 548 A. 2d 1058; State v. Ramseur, supra, 106 N.J. at 324, 524 A. 2d 188). Defendant claims several instances of prosecutorial misconduct. He points to the prosecutor's reference in his opening to facts that were never placed in evidence  specifically that he would prove that Barry Turner would testify that defendant told him that he would read it in the paper how defendant got the money on the night of the murder. In fact, Barry Turner never testified to this effect, although he was impeached with a prior statement that sounded much as if he had said that. Defendant complains that the prosecutor tried to convince the jury that he, the prosecutor, had some superior understanding of the truth such that the jurors simply had to put themselves in the hands of the prosecutor. Having reviewed the State's opening and closing, we find that they are for the most part balanced and evidence-oriented. It may have embellished the record to refer to Pettigrew as a golden witness, or to defendant's consciousness of guilt (after all, defendant says he turned himself in wearing a red jacket), but these are inconsequential complaints. However, we find several references very marginal, particularly those in the opening to defendant as the guest of honor and as an equal opportunity shooter. This latter expression is particularly inappropriate because of its coded significance. That mutation of the civil-rights theme can have no possible relevance to a capital-murder case. The prosecutor may have intended to allay any racist overtones in an interracial crime, but the jury had already assured the court that it would not consider color in any way. And we would be naive not to sense that the use of the word brother to refer to a black capital-defendant carries, as defense counsel put it, emotional baggage that has no place in criminal cases. The prosecutor's suggestion in his cross-examination of DeVault that Long was planning a revolt and plotting with other inmates to challenge the methods used to generate Atlantic County's jury lists raises the question of what message was being conveyed to the jury. Should the defendant die because of his aggressive challenges to the institutions of government or because of statutory aggravating factors? We can only repeat what we have said in the past: [W]e are prepared to take more severe action as required to ensure that capital trials are conducted without resort to improper remarks and questionable tactics by the State's prosecuting attorneys. State v. Williams, supra, 113 N.J. at 456, 550 A. 2d 1172 (quoting State v. Spano, 64 N.J. 566, 569, 319 A. 2d 217 (1974)). In this case the most damaging extraneous factors had the capacity to influence primarily the penalty phase of the trial. The equal-opportunity shooter remark was but one brief moment at the end of a three-hour opening going over the detailed factual presentations the prosecutor would make before the guilt phase started. The penalty phase will be rerun for other reasons and should be conducted in accord with the guidelines of State v. Rose and State v. Williams. The murder verdict on Count Eleven does not establish death-eligibility under State v. Gerald , and that count will have to be retried in a further capital proceeding.