Opinion ID: 1515839
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Propriety of the Prosecutor's Comments

Text: With respect to two of the comments, we agree with the State that defense counsel declined to object for strategic reasons. Specifically, the prosecutor argued in his summation that Warren should not be allowed to get away with the crimes charged simply because Felton and her neighbor did not appear as witnesses at trial. The prosecutor also asserted that the jury could rest assured these things occurred. In each situation, defense counsel responded forcefully in his closing to the prosecutor's remarks  apparently based on counsel's determination that his response would be superior to a curative instruction. Similarly, Warren points to the prosecutor's assertion during the State's rebuttal summation that basically what [defense counsel] said to you is that the officer is lying. Defense counsel immediately objected and the prosecutor withdrew the comment. Although the prosecutor's statement was improper because defense counsel had made no such assertion, we conclude that the defense objection and the withdrawal of the statement were adequate to cure any prejudice from the improper remark. Because we find that defense counsel's actions neutralized the potentially damaging effect of all of the above comments, we will not address Warren's contentions on the comments further. Warren's trial counsel neither objected nor responded to several other allegedly improper remarks made by the prosecutor during closing arguments. First, during summation, the prosecutor argued: Now let's imagine this person picking up his hand, use your mind's eye, and punching a woman in the face, because that's what happened. Now there are a lot of other things that may have happened, and I'm sure the defendant is going to get up and tell you through his attorney that he acted in self-defense if somehow she was injured. Is that possible? Yes, it is possible, but is it reasonable? And that's what we are here to decide today, reasonable doubt. This remark is improper for two reasons. First, it anticipates and responds to a self-defense argument that Warren never presented to the jury. [18] Second, the prosecutor's statement incorrectly suggests that reasonable doubt means that the jury must find Warren's account of the events to be reasonable. Next, the prosecutor argued in summation: You evaluate for yourselves whether there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the State proved to you what was taken and how much it was worth, that's the theft charge [that was nolle prossed ]. Everything else, ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you, there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Similarly, during his analysis of the elements of burglary, the prosecutor argued: [Warren] admits he intended to take property, steal property that belonged to [the neighbor] and give it to another person allegedly, because it belonged to this other drug man, who we never hear who this person is. That story is, I submit to you, a crock. Okay. But it shows you that this person is  his mind is working to try to find some way to get out of this charge. He admitted on tape to a burglary. Then we get the comment about the trash bag, which is a beautiful thing, because it just kind of sums it up at the end and shows you that everything he has been saying is absolutely from out of left field. [19] During closing arguments, a prosecutor may not misrepresent the legal effect of the defendant's statements and may not express personal opinions about the credibility of witnesses. [20] By incorrectly characterizing Warren's taped statement as an admission to burglary, the prosecutor misrepresented the legal effect of Warren's statements during interrogation and implied that there was no factual issue for the jury to decide. [21] The prosecutor also improperly asserted that Warren intentionally fabricated his account of the incident in order to get out of the charges against him. Prosecutors may refer to statements or testimony as a lie (or, in this case, as a crock) only if the prosecutor relates his argument to specific evidence which tends to show that the testimony or statement is a lie. [22] The prosecutor in this case made no attempt to connect this argument to evidence of inconsistency in Warren's statements to the police; rather, the prosecutor relied on his personal opinion that Warren's story was from left field. Indeed, because the prosecutor prefaced two of these remarks with I submit to you, the remarks constituted an improper personal comment on the strength of the State's case and on the credibility of Warren's testimony. [23]