Opinion ID: 1721719
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Intentional Misstatement of the Evidence and/or Reference to Facts Outside the Record

Text: For the same reasons that a prosecutor's reference to evidence not introduced at trial is highly improper, a prosecutor's intentional misstatement of the evidence to a jury is particularly reprehensible. ABA Standards for Criminal Justice-The Prosecution Function, Standard 5.8(a) Commentary (a); See Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 55 S.Ct. 629, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935). An attorney may not knowingly make a false statement of material fact to a tribunal. Rule 3.3(a) of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, adopted in this state as Rule 3.3(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. A lawyer, in trial, may not allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence, assert personal knowledge of facts in issue except when testifying as a witness, or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness, the culpability of a civil litigant or the guilt or innocence of an accused. Rule 3.4(e) of the ABA Model Rules, adopted by this state as Rule 3.4(e) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. This court has repeatedly held that a prosecutor's reference to evidence which had not been admitted at trial is reprehensible and constitutes error. State v. Felde, 422 So.2d 370 (La.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 918, 103 S.Ct. 1903, 77 L.Ed.2d 290 (1983); State v. Prestridge, 399 So.2d 564 (La. 1981); State v. Smith, 196 La. 652, 199 So. 791 (La.1940); State v. Henry, 196 La. 217, 198 So. 910 (1940). When a prosecutor's argument prejudicially refers to matters allegedly within his personal knowledge as prosecutor but not in the evidence, reversible error results. State v. Harrison, 367 So.2d 1 (La.1979); State v. Kaufman, 304 So.2d 300 (La.1974), later appeal, 331 So.2d 16, cert. denied, 429 U.S. 981, 97 S.Ct. 495, 50 L.Ed.2d 591 (1976). This prejudicial type of argument improperly attempts to add to or subtract from the actual evidence in the record (only upon which a conviction may be based) solely through the influence of the prosecutor's official position: Due to respect for the prosecutor's personal knowledge and official expertise, the jury may give greater factual weight to his unsworn factual argument and consequently determine innocence or guilt on the basis of this rather than of the actual evidence properly introduced at trial. State v. Harrison, supra. On two occasions the prosecuting attorney in argument misstated the testimony of the mother of the victim by telling the jury that she had said that the victim had never been in trouble while in fact the record is devoid of any statement by her on the subject. In his guilt phase closing argument, the prosecutor stated: Mrs. Jackson said he [the victim] had never been in trouble a day in his life. And in his guilt phase rebuttal, he said: Ms. Millie Jackson testified that her son had never been in trouble before, words out of her mouth. You may recall that; and you may not. That will be up to you to decide, but that's what's so shocking to hear cheap shots taken by defendants or people that ... At this point, defense counsel's objections were overruled by the trial court. The misstatements apparently were intentional because they were repetitive and totally without basis in the record. At another point during his guilt phase closing argument, the prosecuting attorney alleged facts completely outside the record that tended to bolster the credibility of a prosecution witness. He told the jury that Kelly Herrell's trial testimony was consistent with the prior statements he had given to the police: But Kelly Herrell's statement, ladies and gentlemen, was consistent at all times. From the moment he told the police what happened until he came and testified here today. Again, the complete lack of evidentiary basis for this argument convinces us that the prosecutor intentionally went outside of the record. (Moreover, information developed after trial and included in the Post-Sentence Investigation Report indicates that Herrell in fact may not have consistently told the same story to police and at trial. That report states that the Official Police Report reveals that Herrell changed the story he told the police several times, and that under the initial version of this story the police did not have probable cause to arrest Smith or Harris. Defense counsel moved for a new trial based on this information but failed to press for an evidentiary hearing to prove the facts set forth in the reports.) The impropriety of the prosecutor's remarks was further compounded by the fact that the evidence referred to would have been inadmissible had the prosecutor sought to introduce it in a proper manner. The rule has long been established that testimony to establish the credibility of a witness is not admissible until that credibility has been attacked. La.R.S. 15:484 (1928) (Incorporated in La.Code of Evidence art. 607(B) effective January 1, 1989); State v. Joe, 502 So.2d 270 (La.App. 3d Cir.1987); State v. Lewis, 482 So.2d 71 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986). This is the traditional common law rule, and the result is generally the same under the Federal Rules of Evidence. La.Code of Evidence art. 607, comment (b). See generally C. McCormick, On Evidence § 49 (3d ed. 1984); 4 J. Wigmore, Evidence in Trials at Common Law ch. 38 (Chadbourn rev. 1972). Vigorous cross examination and/or the fact that a witness is contradicted by other evidence in the case does not constitute such an attack. See United States v. Thomas, 768 F.2d 611 (5th Cir.1985); United States v. Jackson, 588 F.2d 1046 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941, 99 S.Ct. 2882, 61 L.Ed.2d 310 (1979); United States v. Danehy, 680 F.2d 1311 (11th Cir.1982); see generally, J. Weinstein and M. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence §§ 607[08]; 608[08] (1988). Because Kelly Herrell's credibility was not attacked, the prosecutor's assertion that Herrell's statement had been consistent at all times contained facts that were inadmissible as well as being outside the record and perhaps false. The prosecuting attorney also referred to evidence outside the record in his rebuttal closing argument in the penalty phase. He described the style of life that Smith would lead if he were sentenced to life imprisonment in the state penitentiary: He goes to prison in [the state penitentiary at] Angola for the rest of his life, and after about, I'd say, eighteen months, two years, he's going to be settled into a whole new life style. He knows he's never going to get out. He's going to make new friends. He's going to have acquaintances; he's going to get visits by his family very often. He's going to be able to have Christmas together with his familybirthdays, holidays. He's going to see his family. [At this point, defense counsel objected but was overruled.] He will continue to have life, to celebrate life. And where is Kenny Jackson's family? Where do they go on his birthday? [Defense counsel again objected and was overruled.] Where do they go? They go visit his grave. He made sixteen years old, and he's shot in the head and brutally murdered. And even more brutal is the fact that he begs for his life. In Angola, it's not all as bad as he tells you about it. You ought to pick up a newspaper sometime and read the Angolite and find out how things are up there. They have a satellite dish. The living conditions in the state penitentiary at Angola were not in evidence at the trial; indeed, such evidence would have been inadmissible. Furthermore, we have held that the prison lifestyle argument is prohibited in capital cases. State v. Kyles, 513 So.2d 265 (La.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1027, 108 S.Ct. 2005, 100 L.Ed.2d 236 (1988). Such arguments detract from the jury's fundamental responsibility of making an `individualized determination' of whether a defendant should be assessed the death penalty based on the `character of the individual and the circumstances of the crime.' Rushing v. Butler, 868 F.2d 800, 804 (5th Cir.1989) [citing Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862, 103 S.Ct. 2733, 77 L.Ed.2d 235 (1983) ].