Opinion ID: 32666
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: due process violation based on prosecutorial

Text: ARGUMENT Kelly argues that his due process rights were violated by the prosecutor’s incorrect argument that Cynthia should not be considered an accomplice with respect to the instant offense. For constitutional error to have occurred, a prosecutor's improper argument must have “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181, 106 S.Ct. 2464, 2471 (1986); cf. Earvin v. Lynaugh, 860 F.2d 623 (5th Cir. 1988) (the evidence must be so insubstantial that no conviction would have occurred but for the argument made by the prosecutor). During closing arguments at the guilt-innocence phase, the prosecutor referred to the jury instructions and stated the following: The law in Texas is that if an accomplice testifies, before a Jury can convict, there must be some other evidence to connect the Defendant to the offense charged. The Court goes on to tell you what an accomplice is. And we submit, ladies and gentlemen, Cindy Kelly is not an accomplice because Cindy Kelly did not act with intent to promote or assist in the commission of this offense. She did not enter the house with the intent to commit the murder or the robbery. In fact, Cindy Kelly acted in an attempt to stop what was done. She attempted to stop the murder of the baby. She begged this Defendant to leave the baby at a doorstep and to save the baby’s life. The very crime scene itself shows that Cindy Kelly is not a party to this offense because she is the one that left the folded towel under the head of Brenda Morgan in an attempt to comfort the victim. The Court further instructs you that to be a party to the offense, they must be connected to the offense before or during the commission of the offense. Cindy Kelly, at the order and direction of Alvin Kelly, drove away at his instructions and his direction. At his order, she helped wipe the car down in Tyler after the capital murder was complete. She had no intent prior to or during to aid or assist in the commission of the offense. She just thought this was business as usual when her [sic] and Al went out. The Court also tells you that mere presence alone does not make a person an accomplice. Even if there’s any question 10 in your mind as to whether Cindy Kelly is an accomplice, the testimony is corroborated and overwhelming by three witnesses – three witnesses who this Defen[d]ant confessed to – Steve Kelly, his brother, Violet Brownfield, and Danny Moore. (emphasis added). The record contains evidence supporting the prosecutor’s argument that Cynthia was not an accomplice. As such, the argument is a fair comment on the evidence. Relying on Creel v. State, 754 S.W.2d 205 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988), the district court denied relief. In Creel, the Court of Criminal Appeals reiterated that without an affirmative act on the part of the witness to assist or encourage the murder, the witness is not an accomplice. Id. at 213. Indeed, Kelly points to no evidence at trial that Cynthia committed an affirmative act to assist or encourage t he murder of the baby, Devin. We conclude that the district court’s resolution of this issue is not debatable among jurists of reason.9