Opinion ID: 2159195
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Prosecutor's Cross-Examination During Penalty Phase

Text: Defendant cites a multiplicity of instances during cross-examination of defense witnesses in the penalty phase that he contends constitute prosecutorial misconduct of sufficient magnitude to require reversal of the defendant's death sentence. Virtually every example of allegedly improper cross-examination is raised as plain error, since defense counsel asserted few objections to the prosecutor's interrogation of the defense witnesses. Indisputably, there are in this record frequent instances in which the prosecutor, while questioning a witness about a proper subject of cross-examination, took extreme liberties in paraphrasing facts not in evidence but reflected in reports reviewed by the experts. Thus, in questioning Dr. Lapidus about defendant's history of violence in his relationships with women, a subject addressed by the witness during her direct testimony, the prosecutor asked these questions without objection: Q. Doesn't it all start because he's beating them up, he's pulling their hairs and dragging them, trying to run them over with the car, punching them in the face, throwing ash trays at them? A. No that's  Q. Taking them to a motel and locking them in a room and beating them up and deserting them there. Don't you think that would have something to do with the fact that the relationship is going to be terminated? Similarly, in challenging Dr. Lapidus's opinion that defendant's emotional problems emanated from his failed reunion with his mother a few months prior to the shooting, the prosecutor, again without objection, asked: Q. What do you think about the fact that he 3 years before that or at least 2 years before that Indiana catastrophe, that he punched a girl in the face because she didn't want to do it his way? Doesn't that sort of show that he had this attitude long before he went to Indiana? Did you know that? Did you know that fact that he had punched one of his girlfriends in the face? [Emphasis added.] As previously noted, the prosecutor's phrase because she didn't want to do it his way appears to be a deliberate distortion of the corresponding entry in the records of the Irvington Mental Health Center, which quote defendant as asking Why doesn't she do things my way? See supra at 493 n. 9. These are but illustrative of numerous examples cited by defendant in which the prosecutor, without objection, allegedly used exaggerated characterizations of facts not in the record in cross-examining witnesses. We find the tactic offensive, and one that amply warranted vigorous objection by defense counsel or, sua sponte, intervention by the trial court. However, matters such as these must ordinarily be resolved by the adversarial process, through timely objection and proper rulings by the trial court. We are aware that criminal trials create a charged atmosphere    [that] frequently makes it arduous for the prosecuting attorney to stay within the orbit of strict propriety. State v. Bucanis, 26 N.J. 45, 56, cert. denied, 357 U.S. 910, 78 S.Ct. 1157, 2 L.Ed. 2d 1160 (1958). We have painstakingly examined the record concerning the instances of alleged improprieties by the prosecutor in cross-examining defense witnesses. Except for the specific instance of misconduct to which we now refer, we are unable to conclude that the prosecutor's cross-examination of defense witnesses, even though at times improper, was so prejudicial as to deny defendant his right to a fair trial.