Opinion ID: 1896884
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Curative Jury Instruction Claim

Text: Perkins next claims that the Superior Court erred by not issuing, sua sponte, a jury instruction to cure the prejudice resulting allegedly from the prosecutor's remarks to the jury. The prosecutor argued: What else does [Perkins] say about that night? He says the sex  he had sex and then casually took a shower, you know, one of those loving showers with Aunyea, the two of them, very touching. Does that make sense when you know somebody else is coming shortly? Does that make sense before Jessica is coming over that he's casually taking his shower, getting out and getting himself all dressed up? Doesn't make sense, because when [Perkins] ran out the door that night after he shot and killed Aunyea, [Perkins'] pulling his pants up. There hadn't been any lovey-dovey in the shower with Aunyea. This all happened  it all happened in a very short period of time. It didn't happen after a shower and everybody getting cleaned up. No. He was not in love that night. He had sex that night and something went bad. Aunyea, the State suggests, wasn't smiling and bringing him on that night. He made her sick, she threw up and somehow when she did that, he was enraged. [13] (Emphasis added). Perkins' counsel did not object to these remarks during the trial. Perkins argues that because the issue of rape had been ruled out of the case during in limine proceedings, the prosecutor improperly re-injected that issue during his closing argument remarks, which implied that Perkins had raped Hawkins. [14] This Court reviews de novo properly raised claims of impermissible prosecutorial remarks. [15] But where, as here, the prosecutorial remarks are not objected to at trial, this Court will review for plain error, [16] which warrants reversal only if the remarks were so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the trial. [17] In this case the prosecutor's remarks, when viewed in context, created an inference that was proper given the evidence, [18] namely, that Hawkins vomited after having sexual intercourse with Perkins. Perkins testified that he and Hawkins had sex, they then had an altercation, and that Hawkins was ready to snap and up real close in [his] face screaming. [19] In his closing argument the prosecutor suggested that the tone of the couple's interaction changed drastically when something went bad, ultimately leading to the victim being shot in the back of the head. This inference, which the prosecutor asked the jury to draw, flowed legitimately from the evidence. Perkins has failed to identify any substantial right that was jeopardized by the prosecutor's remarks. Perkins himself testified that the victim vomited after having sexual intercourse with him. Because the prosecutor's remarks did not create an unfair inference or compromise the fairness of Perkins' trial, the failure to issue a sua sponte curative instruction was not error, let alone plain error, that would warrant reversal. Perkins also challenges the trial court's failure to issue a separate curative instruction in response to a separate trial event. The prosecutor asked the defense's expert witness why she failed to test the hair sample for gunshot residue. [20] That question, Perkins claims, improperly suggested that the defense had the burden of proof. We disagree, because the jury was told that the State had the burden of proof. In response to an earlier prosecutorial question, the trial court gave a curative instruction to the jury that the burden of proof rested with the State. [21] Moreover, immediately before the prosecutor asked the arguably improper question, the trial court again instructed the jury that at all times the burden is on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. . . . It always remains on the State. [22] We conclude that the trial court committed no error, let alone plain error, by not issuing the curative instructions that Perkins claims was legally required.