Court Opinion

ID: 9603384
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:05:32.780406+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:11.093553
License: Public Domain

PARKS, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
Although I concur in the affirmance of appellant’s conviction, I would modify appellant’s sentence based on Assistant District Attorney F. Pat VerSteeg’s insistence on making improper societal alarm comments during closing argument, in spite of the trial judge’s admonishments and sustaining of proper defense objections on several occasions. After excusing the jury, the trial judge made the following remarks to the prosecutor:
THE COURT: Mr. VerSteeg, as to the matter where the Court made admonition toward you and you continued, I’m going to let it go with basically a reprimand at this time because, I’ll be honest with you; this is the closest I’ve ever come to holding an attorney in direct contempt in my court. I almost did that. And I considered it very hard in the interim. But Im putting you on notice, if it ever happens again in any of my courts, after I had admonished that certain comments would not be made, then I will not hesitate in the future to use that arm of the court in insuring that my admonitions are followed. Do you understand, sir?
MR. VERSTEEG: Yes, sir.
(Tr. 331) When the improper societal alarm comments are coupled with the prosecutor’s insistence on ignoring the trial judge’s admonishments, this case falls within the rule enunciated by Judge Bussey that an admonishment is sufficient to cure error “[ujnless comments by the prosecutor are unusually egregious.... ” Ybarra v. State, 733 P.2d 1342, 1347 (Okla.Crim.App.1987). The failure of Prosecutor VerSteeg to abide by the trial judge’s admonishments during closing arguments in the punishment stage indicates an intent to inflame the jury to render a sentence based on passion. Accordingly, I would modify ap*915pellant’s sentence to the one (1) year minimum possible under 47 O.S.Supp.1985, § 11-902(C).