Court Opinion

ID: 9784992
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 21:00:37.624182+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:02.365604
License: Public Domain

HILL, Justice,
specially concurring, with whom KITE, Justice, joins.
[¶ 23] I submit this special concurrence because it is my conviction that the argument *1173made by the prosecutor and quoted in ¶ 15 of the opinion was improper and it should be positively identified as such. Whether “the story” used by the prosecutor was truly anecdotal, or if it was in the nature of a parable, or if it was a part of the lore of prosecu-torial experience, it was directly aimed at diluting and undermining both the prosecution’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant’s right to the presumption of innocence. Therefore, I would prefer that the Court identify it as erroneous. Because it is reviewed under the plain error standard, my conclusion would be that, although the record dearly presents the incident alleged to be error, and that the incident violated a clear and unequivocal rule of law, in a clear and obvious, not merely arguable way, Harris was not able to demonstrate that the error denied her a substantial right resulting in material prejudice to her. E.g., Lemus v. State, 2007 WY 111, ¶¶ 38-41, 162 P.3d 497, 507-8 (Wyo.2007). In addition, I am uncomfortable in justifying such an error, even in part, on the basis that the defense “opened the door” to it, because it cross-examined witnesses, and argued to the jury, that the evidence is not sufficient to meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. The result I prefer would have the salutary effect of deterring, rather than encouraging, the further use of this particular “story” in future cases, alerting defense counsel that such argument is error to which they should object, as well as in guiding the district courts in the always-difficult task of gleaning what this Court views as error in the context of closing argument.