Opinion ID: 2396245
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: State's Closing Argument Mistrial Motion Properly Denied

Text: Second, Mills contends that the Superior Court abused its discretion when it refused to grant a mistrial after the prosecutor's impermissible references to Mills' election not to testify in his own defense. During the State's closing argument, the prosecutor initially stated, You've heard no evidence of any reason why he had that shotgun. Mills' defense counsel promptly objected to the statement as an impermissible comment on Mills' right not to testify or present any defense witnesses during the Superior Court trial and requested a cautionary jury instruction. The Superior Court then instructed the jury as follows: Members of the jury, I instruct you in any criminal case, the defendant is under no obligation to bring forth any evidence whatsoever. After the jury instruction, the prosecutor continued his closing argument as follows: And as the defense is under no obligation to produce any evidence of any choice of evils or any reason why this gun was picked up, for example a reason like I didn't want it sitting there, some small child might play with it, or I didn't know what I was doing, I was curious, and none of those kind of defenses have come forward, nor do they have to. Mill's defense counsel again objected and at sidebar moved for a mistrial. The prosecutor responded to the second defense objection by stating: I expressed what the defenses were, the defenses as they were brought up in the opening of [defense counsel]. He's the one that gave us those defenses in opening and produced no evidence of those whatsoever. It leaves me in a position when you bring up these arguments in opening and then don't bring up any evidence of them, then I'm in a position, and I need to address them. He brought them up in opening, and then it's left with me with those explanations, those arguments, out there and no evidence to back them up. Mills' attorney replied that opening statements are not evidence but are meant to be an indication of what each side hoped to establish at trial. In response to the second defense objection, the Superior Court directed the State not to get further into argument about what defenses were suggested in the opening statement by defense counsel.... The Superior Court then gave the following additional cautionary instruction: Members of the jury, I instruct you again that the defense is  any defendant in any criminal case is under no obligation to bring forth any evidence in a criminal case. The burden is upon the State always in every criminal case to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each and every element of the offense. The Superior Court also specifically admonished the jury to disregard entirely the prosecutor's comments that were the subject of the second defense objection. The Superior Court reserved decision on the mistrial motion. The next day, after the jury found Mills guilty of Possession of a Destructive Weapon, the Superior Court denied the motion for a mistrial. It is a violation of a defendant's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for a prosecutor to draw a negative inference from the defendant's election not to testify at trial. [6] The State may not invite any inference of the defendant's guilt merely from his own failure to testify. [7] An accurate characterization of the evidence as uncontradicted, however, is permissible. [8] This Court has previously noted that between these two extremes lies an uncertain area of latitude for comment on a defendant's failure to testify. [9] The Superior Court recognized that although the prosecution may comment upon the defendant's failure to produce evidence that was described during his or her attorney's opening statement to the jury, [10] it is a subject area that should be avoided by the State due to the omnipresent danger of violating a defendant's rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. [11] In this case, Mills had failed to either present or elicit any evidence to support a jury instruction regarding the theory of justification that had been described in his defense attorney's opening statement to the jury. The Superior Court balanced the probative value to the State's case of commenting on that obvious failure of proof against the potential for violating Mills' Fifth Amendment rights. The Superior Court's directions to the prosecutor during the recorded side bar conference and contemporaneous instructions to the jury properly resolved those competing considerations in favor of Mills. We hold that the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Mills' motion for a new trial. Both of the objections by Mills' attorney during the State's closing argument were timely. The trial judge's immediate clarifying instructions after each objection by Mills' attorney permitted the jury to properly discharge its function within the bounds of the law.