Opinion ID: 1952970
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Centrality of the Issue

Text: Bugra contends that the prosecutor stating, I guess Mr. Bugra thinks it's funny affected his credibility in the eyes of the jury. His credibility, he argues, was central to his case because of the fact that he alone testified to his version of the events. The problem with Bugra's claim is that his credibility had already diminished as a result of the differing depiction of events he gave to Detective Aguilar and the jury. Shortly after his arrest Bugra told Detective Aguilar he had hit Ede over the head with a beer bottle. Then, later at trial, he testified that he never hit Ede with a beer bottle but, rather, hit another bottle. Thus either Bugra was not telling the truth to the officer or to the jury. Either way his credibility was diminished by his conflicting stories. Bugra also contends that the context of the prosecutor's statement is what makes it especially inflammatory. Just prior to the prosecutor making the statement at issue he was giving the jury an analogy involving an American flag. Bugra argues that because he is Turkish the prosecutor's comment made it appear as if he was laughing at the American flag. After the events of September 11, 2001, he contends this type of insinuation is prejudicial because of the political climate of the country. Bugra's allegation is problematic for a number of reasons. First, the prosecutor explained to the court that what he was depicting to the jury was that while assembling a jigsaw puzzle of the American flag even if you do not know it's the American flag as you put some of the pieces together you can draw the conclusion that it is the flag. Thus even if they, as jurors, do not have all of the pieces of the story of the events of that night, they can still get an idea of what occurred. Although the prosecutor's use of the American flag as the puzzle may be a little suspect because of Bugra's nationality, it does not necessarily draw the conclusion that the jury should convict Bugra because he is Turkish. Second, as the State points out, this was a case where both the victim and the defendant were Turkish. It is not a case of a Turkish person assaulting an American. Thus an improper inference by the jury was not likely. Finally, the judge placed on the record the fact that Bugra was laughing when the prosecutor made the statement. Although this does not excuse the comment, it acknowledges that the jury was probably able to see him laughing as well. This case is distinguishable from Morris v. State where we found reversible error. [8] In Morris the prosecutor improperly argued to the jury that they may acquit the defendant only if the State's witnesses were lying. [9] We held that such an argument directly attacked witness credibility which was a central issue at trial. The centrality of credibility coupled with the prosecutor's comment compelled reversal. [10] Bugra's argument, however, that the prosecutor prejudiced him by making the comment is misplaced. Bugra prejudiced himself by his laughter. The prosecutor's comment, although improper, did not affect Bugra's credibility.