Court Opinion

ID: 9649668
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:05:25.720316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:13.585938
License: Public Domain

Bogdanski, J.
(dissenting). I cannot agree with the conclusion of the majority that the defendant waived his right to challenge the improper comments made by the state’s attorney. Those remarks brought highly prejudicial facts before the jury without any support in the evidence and deprived the defendant of his constitutional right to a fair trial. Compliance with § 652 of the Practice Book is not required “where the record adequately supports a claim that a litigant has clearly been deprived of a fundamental constitutional right and a fair trial.” State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61, 70, 327 A.2d 576. The record in this case amply supports such a claim. Furthermore, this court has stated that a new trial may be granted in cases of “flagrantly improper” comment by the state’s attorney, notwithstanding the defendant’s failure to call the trial court’s attention to the objectionable remark. State v. Frost, 105 Conn. 326, 338, 135 A. 446; State v. Washelesky, 81 Conn. 22, 28, 70 A. 62; State v. Laudano, 74 Conn. 638, 645, 51 A. 860.
Prosecutors cannot infringe upon constitutionally protected rights óf an accused by conduct during the course of the trial. Where that has been done, the courts have not hesitated to reverse convictions. See, e.g., Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S. Ct. 1229, 14 L. Ed. 2d 106, rehearing denied, 381 U.S. 957, 85 S. Ct. 1797, 14 L. Ed. 2d 730 (comment by the *389proseentor on the accused’s silence); United States v. Wright, 489 F.2d 1181 (D.C. Cir.) (comment by the prosecutor on the defendant’s character as evidenced by his courtroom behavior); Racine v. State, 290 Ala. 225, 275 So. 2d 655 (comments by the prosecutor with no support in the record suggesting that the defendant had sold drugs to children and that he had committed numerous other crimes); State v. McClure, 504 S.W.2d 664 (Mo. App.) (prosecutor’s reference to the defendant’s military status and statement that the defendant was running away from his responsibility to his country, which comments were totally irrelevant to the crime charged); Commonwealth v. Lipscomb, 455 Pa. 525, 317 A.2d 205 (prosecutor’s argument that the dead victim would be his best witness, recital of what that testimony would have been, and characterization of the defendant as a “hoodlum” and an “animal”); Lopez v. State, 500 S.W.2d 844 (Tex. Crim. App.) (comments by the prosecutor that he was “concerned about the open season on police officers” and that the defendants were lying when they entered their pleas of not guilty).
A prosecutor is not an ordinary advocate. His duty is to see that justice is done and to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce prejudice and wrongful decisions by the jury. Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88, 55 S. Ct. 629, 79 L. Ed. 1314; United States v. Kravitz, 281 F.2d 581, 587 (3d Cir.). In State v. Ferrone, 96 Conn. 160, 168-69, 113 A. 452, this court said regarding the duties of the prosecutor: “The ease before us is a criminal case, and the counsel whose statements are in question is the State’s Attorney. He is not only an officer of the court . . . but is also a high public officer, representing the people of the State, who *390seek impartial justice for the guilty as much, as for the innocent. . . . By reason of his office, he usually exercises great influence upon jurors. His conduct and language in the trial of cases in which human life or liberty are at stake should be forceful, but fair, because he represents the public interest, which demands no victim and asks no conviction through the aid of passion, prejudice, or resentment. If the accused be guilty, he should none the less be convicted only after a fair trial, conducted strictly according to the sound and well-established rules which the laws prescribe. While the privilege of counsel in addressing the jury should not be too closely narrowed or unduly hampered, it must never be used as a license to state, or to comment upon, or to suggest an inference from, facts not in evidence, or to present matters which the jury have no right to consider. Worden v. Gore-Meenan Co., 83 Conn. 642, 652, 78 Atl. 422 .... This law was not observed and enforced in this case. Because it was not, the accused has not had an impartial trial. Therefore the verdict must be set aside.”
The record in this case discloses that the state’s attorney made the following statements to the jury during his summation: “The police officers have testified here before you. They have blown their cover. They come in here and identify before you, two excellent trained investigators, undercover men who, you heard their testimony, purchased over a hundred various items of heroin, LSD and other controlled drugs. They have come in and we have lost them as undercover men due to this case, but we put them on here as witnesses before you, because this LSD problem and the sale of it is such a serious offense. . . . They go around with a beard and attempt to buy these drugs, and they succeeded. *391But something went wrong with Mr. Malley this time because these men came into court and testified before you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. . . . Now, with respect to this drug scene, there are few people fighting it and a few of them are the two that testified here. There aren’t many others, and we have lost them due to this trial.” (Emphasis added.)
These comments by the prosecutor were totally gratuitous and uncalled for. There was no evidence that the undercover agents were prevented from working in other geographic areas. There was no evidence that the disclosure of their names would affect their ability to continue as undercover agents. The effect of these comments was to prejudice the jury against the defendant for exercising his constitutional rights to a trial by jury and to confront the witnesses against him. U.S. Const. amend. VI; Conn. Const. art. 1 § 8. The state’s attorney’s account why the officers were put on the stand was misleading. They testified not for the reasons given by the state’s attorney, but because the defendant had a right to confront his accusers. The comment that the state lost them due to this trial was wholly unwarranted. Moreover, the comment that “something went wrong with Mr: Malley this time” could only lead the jury to speculate that past criminal conduct on his part had gone unpunished.
The state’s attorney commented further: “This question of the use of these psychedelic or hallucinogenic drugs has inflamed our country and has put many of us to asking questions about the use of this drug by our young people. We often hear the expression the drug scene. And when we think of the drug scene, we think of what we see on television, what we hear about, the group in Greenwich *392Village, yonng people dressed in hippie style using marihuana, LSD, speed, some one of these other drugs who turn on, hut that is not the drug scene as we see it.”
Again, these comments had no basis in the evidence and had no business in the case.
In passing, I note that a major issue in the case was the defendant’s alibi and that the jury deliberated for some time before returning their verdict of guilty. This was not a case where overwhelming evidence of guilt would permit a conclusion that the prejudicial comments were but harmless error. See, e.g., United States v. Bivona, 487 F.2d 443 (2d Cir.); People v. Parker, 15 Ill. App. 3d 774, 305 N.E.2d 228; State v. Tillem, 127 N.J. Super. 421, 317 A.2d 738.
In my view, the defendant was penalized for exercising his right to a jury trial and his right to confront the -witnesses against him. He was thus deprived of his fundamental right to receive a fair and impartial trial.
I would find error, set aside the verdict and order a new trial.