Opinion ID: 1163403
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: Vouching for Credibility.

Text: [34] Brett argues the prosecutor improperly vouched for the credibility of Mrs. Milosevich during his closing argument. It is improper for a prosecutor personally to vouch for the credibility of a witness. State v. Sargent, 40 Wn. App. 340, 344, 698 P.2d 598 (1985). Prosecutors may, however, argue an inference from the evidence, and prejudicial error will not be found unless it is clear and unmistakable that counsel is expressing a personal opinion. Sargent, 40 Wn. App. at 344. In speaking to the jury about the discrepancy between Mrs. Milosevich's and Shirley Martin's testimony as to whether the alarm went into full alarm mode, the prosecutor argued: And you're going to have to evaluate credibility on that issue I guess. But I would suggest that one reason you might want to believe Pat Milosevich on that issue is that she at the time those events were occurring was watching her husband of 33 years being blown away by a .410 shotgun. And maybe that's the kind of scenario of events that she's going to remember fairly well for the rest of her life.... Report of Proceedings vol. 14 (June 11, 1992), at 25-26. This argument does not set forth a statement of personal belief, as was done in Sargent when the prosecutor stated, I believe Jerry Lee Brown. I believe him .... Sargent, 40 Wn. App. at 343. Rather, the prosecutor was drawing an inference from the evidence as to why the jury would want to believe one witness over another. This statement was not improper.