Opinion ID: 2638035
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the prosecutor commit misconduct by referring to the appellant as a pedophile during rebuttal closing argument?

Text: [¶8] The prosecutor's statement at issue was made during the State's rebuttal closing argument, and the statement was followed by an objection, so we apply the following standard of review: Where there has been an objection below, claims of prosecutorial misconduct are reviewed under a harmless error standard: Wyoming Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.04 states that any error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded by the reviewing court. Wyoming Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(a) and Wyoming Rule of Evidence 103(a) contain similar provisions. The test for harmless error is as follows: An error is harmful if there is a reasonable possibility that the verdict might have been more favorable to the defendant if the error had never occurred. To demonstrate harmful error, the defendant must show prejudice under `circumstances which manifest inherent unfairness and injustice or conduct which offends the public sense of fair play.' Condra v. State, 2004 WY 131, ¶ 7, 100 P.3d 386, 389 (Wyo. 2004) ( quoting Dysthe v. State, 2003 WY 20, ¶ 10, 63 P.3d 875, 881 (Wyo. 2003)). . . . We decide claims of prosecutorial misconduct by reference to the entire record, and where the claim is one of improper argument, we consider it in the context of the entire argument. Law [ v. State ], 2004 WY 111, ¶ 12, 98 P.3d [181,] 191 [(Wyo. 2004)]. . . . The question is whether, based on the entire record, a reasonable possibility exists that, in the absence of the error, the verdict might have been more favorable to the accused. Lopez v. State, 2004 WY 103, ¶ 56, 98 P.3d 143, 157 (Wyo. 2004). The burden of establishing prosecutorial misconduct rests upon the appellant who raises the issue. Lancaster v. State, 2002 WY 45, ¶ 32, 43 P.3d 80, 94 (Wyo. 2002). Butcher v. State, 2005 WY 146, ¶¶ 38-39, 123 P.3d 543, 554 (Wyo. 2005). [¶9] This standard of review requires us to consider the challenged statement in the context of the entire closing argument, and also in the context of the entire trial. In his opening statement, the prosecutor described how the appellant met the victim and her mother, how the friendly relationship developed over time, and how the appellant frequently gave gifts to the victim. He did not suggest that the relationship was that of a pedophile grooming a victim. In his initial closing argument, he did make the following statements: I think you all know that the defendant knew exactly what he was doing all along. He manipulated [the victim] into a position where he could have sex with her, and then he manipulated her into remaining quiet. Defense counsel made no objection to these comments, choosing instead to respond to them in his own closing argument as follows: The way the State has this made up, though, it's like from the day that she was 9 years old, he's been heaping all these presents on her, so that he could commit  according to her, at least  a forcible rape at the age of 15. They asked you to listen to the facts and see if that makes sense. [¶10] In his rebuttal closing, the prosecutor responded, in turn, with the following: The defense argued that Joe Phillips  that in order to convict the defendant  you are going to have to believe that Joe Phillips had this sinister plan beginning at age 8, to shower [the victim] with presents and then employ [her], give her all his trust and responsibility, and that he fostered this relationship to the point where he could have sex with her at some point down the road. I don't think you have to believe that in order to convict the defendant. But I think that's exactly what happened. It's called grooming. And that's what pedophiles do. [¶11] The bases for defense counsel's objection were that there had been no evidence admitted that the appellant was a pedophile, and that the prosecutor's statement was simply inflammatory. The objection was overruled. We can readily conclude that the appellant is correct and that his objection should have been sustained. There was no such evidence presented to the jury, and the prosecutor's statements amounted to nothing less than his own testimony, which is forbidden. Lafond v. State, 2004 WY 51, ¶ 35, 89 P.3d 324, 336 (Wyo. 2004). Furthermore, calling the appellant a pedophile was certainly inflammatory, which is also forbidden. Dysthe v. State, 2003 WY 20, ¶ 24, 63 P.3d 875, 884-84 (Wyo. 2003). [¶12] We cannot say, however, that the prosecutor's use of the word pedophile produced material prejudice to the appellant; that is, that the verdict might have been more favorable to the appellant had that single word not been uttered. It was not error for the prosecutor to describe the appellant's conduct with the victim as manipulative or grooming, because those conclusions were reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the evidence that was presented. Inasmuch as the appellant admitted having sexual intercourse with the victim on the date alleged, the only real issue regarding the third-degree sexual assault charge was whether he knew her age at the time. With all of the testimony about that question throughout the trial, it is extremely doubtful that the use of this one irrelevant word affected the outcome.