Opinion ID: 1497818
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: overruling of objection to prosecutor's remarks during closing argument

Text: Webb's final argument relates in part to the following comments by the prosecutor during her closing argument: What bias did Detective Hazewski have? Is he suspect because of the  because he is a cop? Would he lie to you because he is a cop? This argument was made in response to Webb's earlier suggestion to the jury during his testimony that Hazewski was lying. On appeal, Webb claims the above comments improperly forced the jury to choose between Hazewski's version of the facts and his own. This characterization of the comments is patently incorrect. Compare Fensterer v. State, Del.Supr., 509 A.2d 1106, 1111-1112 (1986) (finding improper a prosecutor's statement that necessarily implied that a defendant could be acquitted only if the jury found that certain police officers committed perjury). Webb also argues that the prosecutor acted in an inflammatory manner by telling the jury that, if [a]fter listening to the instructions and conscientiously applying them ... you will restore to [the victim] the dignity that was taken from her so many years ago. [Objection raised.] ... And then you will bring back a verdict of guilty. Although this type of argument is of questionable propriety, in this particular case we find that [t]he prejudicial weight of this comment is not so great as to warrant a reversal. See Mason v. State, Del.Supr., 658 A.2d 994, 998 (1995) (holding that defendant's right to a fair trial was not violated by prosecutor's statement that the victim `deserves the justice of our system'); accord Diaz v. State, Del.Supr., 508 A.2d 861, 866 (1986) (finding no abuse of discretion in trial court's refusal to declare mistrial, where prosecutor in closing argument asked jury to `remember that this is [the victim's] only shot at achieving justice as well[]'). The instructions in the jury charge that the jurors should not treat counsel's remarks as evidence and should not decide the case based on passion, prejudice, sympathy, the consequences of the verdict, or any other improper motive support this conclusion.