Opinion ID: 883123
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Was the defendant prejudiced by the prosecutor's comment during opening statements?

Text: In Rhyne, 833 P.2d at 1120, this Court rejected a defendant's claim of prosecutorial misconduct where the prosecutor, in jury voir dire, asked whether the panelists would feel uncomfortable telling a group of people the details of his or her first sexual experience. The defendant in that case argued on appeal that the prosecutor's question implied to the jury panelists that the alleged acts of incest were the child's first sexual experiences. The defendant argued that the prosecutor's comment denied him a fair trial because he was not allowed to present any `possible explanation for [the child's] motives, biases and prejudices other than his guilt to the offense charged. Rhyne, 833 P.2d at 1120. In rejecting Rhyne's argument, we cited State v. Miller (1988), 231 Mont. 497, 507, 757 P.2d 1275, 1281, in holding that [i]t has long been the law of this state that prejudice in a criminal case will not be presumed, but must appear from the denial or invasion of a substantial right from which the law imputes prejudice. Rhyne, 833 P.2d at 1120. In Rhyne, we concluded that the defendant failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the prosecutor's comment during voir dire. Our review of the record reveals that the prosecutor's comment did not suggest that the alleged acts were S.M.'s first sexual experiences: [S.M.] doesn't care much for girl stuff. Kind of a tomboy at heart. Most of us get to look back on our childhoods; our families with love and affection. During this trial, you're going to find [S.M.] got to look back on her childhood and get [sic] to remember a mom, as she will tell you, who was in the same bed with her when this man sexually abused her; while the person who was supposedly acting as her father, took away her innocence through sexual acts most consenting adults don't even engage in. When we look back to our childhoods, when we were nine, we get to remember things like school, picnics, softball games, being tucked into bed at night, being read bedtime stories by parents who loved us. Moreover, unlike defense counsel in Rhyne, defense counsel in the instant case failed to object at the time of the comment. Stuit failed to request that the District Court admonish the jury, nor did he request a mistrial. We conclude that Stuit has failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the prosecutor's comment during her opening statement and that he was not denied a fair trial as a result of the prosecutor's comments.