Court Opinion

ID: 9665465
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:49:15.715432+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:15.909686
License: Public Domain

Richard B. Adkisson, Chief Justice, dissenting. The majority have incorrectly held that, during closing argument, the defense invited certain comments by the prosecuting attorney. Not only were the prosecutor’s comments uninvited but were so damaging that their prejudicial effect was not removed by the admonition of the trial judge. During closing argument the appellant’s attorney made an argument to the jury concerning the lineup conducted by the police: But Kevin [appellant] had signed a waiver saying that he didn’t want to be represented by counsel. So, even though there has been, as Mr. Adams said, no hint that there was some sort of collusion or some sort of directing of their attention towards someone, we don’t know. I mean, there is no neutral representative in that dark room, to stand there as an impartial witness and say, ‘That didn’t happen.’ All we have is a police officer who said, ‘No, I didn’t try to guide which way they were supposed to look or which person they were supposed to look at.’ And I’m not accusing a police officer of lying. All I’m saying is that we don’t have a neutral representative to know. By using this statement as having “opened the door,” the prosecuting attorney argued to the jury: The defendant sought to say that there had been no neutral authority who has reviewed the actions of the police department, reviewed the line-ups, but there has been. And that’s the authority of the Judge. Ladies and gentlemen, if there had been something wrong — if there had been a defect in the photo show-ups or the line-ups, they wouldn’t be here before you. We had a pre-trial hearing on that. They’re here before you because the Judge found no defects. It is conceivable that a prosecutor, during the urgency of the trial, could confuse the defense attorney’s statement that there was not a neutral person present at the lineup with the trial judge’s neutrality in later finding that the identification óf the defendant by the witnesses was reliable. However, it is inconceivable that this court could be confused by this language and hold that the defense comment invited the prosecutor’s remarks. As the record clearly reflects, the defense counsel’s statement in no way referred to the pretrial determination by the trial judge. Appellant promptly objected to the prosecutor’s argument and asked for a mistrial, which was denied. The trial judge then attempted to glaze over the error by an unsatisfactory admonition to the jury: The Court will indicate to the jury that you are to consider only the evidence and the facts that have been elicited here today. Whatever happened before, that did not come up in this trial before you through the live witnesses or through the opening remarks of the attorneys, is not to be considered. I ask you to disregard any statements or comments about anything that happened outside of this courtroom today, that did not come in through live testimony or stipulations. This admonition by the trial court, unquestionably, did not remove the effect of the prosecutor’s very damaging and prejudicial remarks. Actually, it is difficult to imagine what the trial court could have said to cure this error. The prosecutor’s statement to the jury was intentional and couched in clear and unmistakable language. The trial judge must determine as a matter of law whether there are constitutional infirmities rendering identification evidence inadmissible. If admissible, reliability of identification is an issue of fact to be decided by the jury. See Synoground v. State, 260 Ark. 756, 543 S.W. 2d 935 (1976). Here, the defendant was entitled to have the issue of the reliability of the identification determined by the jury, unbiased and unaffected by the opinion of the trial judge. See Sharpy. State, 51 Ark. 147, 10 S.W. 228 (1888). A mistrial should have been declared. I would reverse and remand for a new trial. I am hereby authorized to state that Purtle and Hays, JJ., join in this dissent.