65 results for 'cat:"Prosecutorial Misconduct"'.
J. Golemon finds the trial court properly convicted defendant for DUI. The prosecutor showed the jury a puzzle with pieces missing, and after adding the pieces to show the full picture noted the term "beyond a reasonable doubt" consisted of common sense. The defense objected, arguing the prosecution was attempting to redefine "beyond a reasonable doubt." The judge correctly overruled the objection, telling the jury there was “no specific legal definition of beyond a reasonable doubt” and that it was up to each juror to determine. Dashcam and bodycam videos, as well as the results of field sobriety and breath tests, support the conviction. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Golemon , Filed On: May 15, 2024, Case #: 09-22-00266-CR, Categories: Evidence, prosecutorial Misconduct, Dui
Per curiam, the appellate division finds that the lower court properly convicted defendant of attempted assault and weapon possession. Although the state failed to disclose a police report in time, defendant failed to show that this actually prejudiced him, especially since defense counsel was aware of the information in the report and was allowed to cross-examine the relevant witness. Defendant had no right to youthful offender treatment sice he was convicted of an armed felony due to firing multiple shots at a person on a busy street. Affirmed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: May 15, 2024, Case #: 02675, Categories: prosecutorial Misconduct, Assault, Weapons
J. Jones finds the prosecutor's comments to the jury during opening statements about common experiences across victims of domestic violence did not constitute misconduct. They did not represent expert testimony, but were anchored to the evidence the state intended to present in its case. Meanwhile, even though the victim did not answer calls made by defendant from an unlisted number, the calls alone were sufficient to convict defendant of stalking after they were traced to the jail at which he was being housed because they violated a protection order obtained by the victim. Affirmed.
Court: Colorado Court Of Appeals, Judge: Jones, Filed On: May 2, 2024, Case #: 2024COA45, Categories: prosecutorial Misconduct, Assault, Harassment
J. Wadsworth finds a prosecutor improperly misrepresented blood and witness evidence during closing arguments against defendant, who was accused of the unprovoked stabbing of a teen girl. The prosecutor may have unduly influenced the jury by conflating defendant with a person seen washing blood off, as it was not established in testimony that the person seen was defendant. The prosecutor also alluded to stains on his shirt as being blood, though no evidence submitted indicated the stains were blood. However, evidence of the victim’s identification of the defendant as the person who stabbed her should not be suppressed, as nothing about her statements were influenced by police or compromised her ability to identify him. Vacated.
Court: Hawai'i Court Of Appeals, Judge: Wadsworth, Filed On: April 30, 2024, Case #: CAAP-22-464, Categories: prosecutorial Misconduct, Assault, Jury Instructions
J. Veljacic finds that the lower court properly convicted defendant of burglary. Defendant claims that the prosecutor committed misconduct by misstating the burden of proof during closing arguments. While the prosecutor's statements were improper, defendant waived the right to appeal that claim because she did not object to it during trial. Affirmed.
Court: Washington Court Of Appeals, Judge: Veljacic, Filed On: April 30, 2024, Case #: 57910-3-II, Categories: Burglary, prosecutorial Misconduct
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Kamins finds that certain prosecutor statements during closing arguments improperly shifted the burden of proof to the defense. “Prosecutor’s statements that defendant could have but did not cross-examine [the victim] or her friend suggested to the jury that defendant had the burden to prove that his version of the events was true.” Reversed.
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals, Judge: Kamins, Filed On: April 17, 2024, Case #: A179175, Categories: Jury, prosecutorial Misconduct, Sex Offender
J. Egan finds the trial court erred in convicting defendant of murder after prosecutorial misstatements. “Prosecutor’s argument during his rebuttal both misstated the burden of proof and encouraged the jury to decide the case with reference to impermissible character-based reasoning that directed the jury ‘away from the facts [and] toward emotion.’” Reversed.
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals, Judge: Egan, Filed On: April 17, 2024, Case #: A178335, Categories: Murder, prosecutorial Misconduct
J. Baker holds that defendant is entitled to a new trial because cumulative errors led to his conviction for deliberate homicide. The state implicitly suggested to the jury that defendant and his girlfriend were drug dealers. The state also failed to disclose that defendant's home was burglarized by associates of the homicide victim on the night of the homicide, and it failed to attempt to unlock the victim's phone, which may have shown a broader conspiracy against defendant. Reversed.
Court: Montana Supreme Court, Judge: Baker, Filed On: April 9, 2024, Case #: DA 21-0290, Categories: Evidence, Murder, prosecutorial Misconduct
J. Griffiths finds that an amendment of form and not of substance had been made to an indictment during trial and thus was permissible. Meanwhile, a prosecutor's improper statements did not constitute plain error under "Wainwright," and the statements did not warrant reversal under "Hunter" since they were not persistent through multiple trials.
Court: Delaware Supreme Court, Judge: Griffiths, Filed On: April 8, 2024, Case #: 232, 2023, Categories: Criminal Procedure, prosecutorial Misconduct, Assault
J. Hoyle finds the trial court properly convicted defendant for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Officers found a ledger of narcotic sales, meth and other drug-related items in defendant's vehicle after responding to a domestic disturbance. Defendant says the state’s comments about adding “cut” to the meth constitute impermissible jury argument, contending it exceeded evidence presented at trial and did not make a reasonable deduction from that evidence. Defendant did not object to the comment and the argument is not preserved, though the comment still made a reasonable inference regarding the drug/cut mixture quantity. Furthermore, because counsel has wide latitude to draw inferences from the evidence, the argument was not improper. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Hoyle , Filed On: March 28, 2024, Case #: 12-23-00100-CR, Categories: Drug Offender, Evidence, prosecutorial Misconduct
J. Witt finds that the lower court properly convicted defendant of statutory sodomy against two separate victims and sentenced him to a total of 55 years in prison. A portion of the state's cross-examination of defendant was argumentative, but this error did not prejudice defendant given the substantial evidence against him. Further, there is no reasonable basis to find the jury would have acquitted defendant had the prosecutor not made reference to his being a predator in closing arguments. Affirmed.
Court: Missouri Court Of Appeals, Judge: Witt, Filed On: March 19, 2024, Case #: WD85819, Categories: prosecutorial Misconduct, Sex Offender
J. McKinnon finds that defendant's unpreserved prosecutorial misconduct claims that the state improperly vouched for the victim's credibility and made inappropriate emotional appeals to the jury do not warrant plain error review. Also, probation restrictions prohibiting him from alcohol, drugs, gambling, casinos and bars were standard conditions and within the trial court's sentencing discretion. Affirmed.
Court: Montana Supreme Court, Judge: McKinnon, Filed On: March 5, 2024, Case #: DA 22-0030, Categories: prosecutorial Misconduct, Sentencing, Sex Offender
J. Cates finds that the lower court properly convicted defendant of attempted murder, after defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel. There were no significant changes during the trial that required re-admonishments of the risks of proceeding pro se. Further, defendant forfeited the issue of whether the state made improper remarks during closing arguments. Affirmed.
Court: Illinois Appellate Court, Judge: Cates, Filed On: March 1, 2024, Case #: 220008, Categories: Murder, prosecutorial Misconduct, Self Representation
J. Chutich affirms the defendant's three first-degree premeditated murder convictions for the killings of his girlfriend, their unborn child, and the girlfriend's infant son. The defendant forfeited appellate relief for an allegedly improper closing argument by failing to object to the relevant portions of that argument at trial, and he has failed to show that speculative statements in closing arguments are a repeated problem warranting prophylactic reversal. Affirmed.
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court, Judge: Chutich, Filed On: February 28, 2024, Case #: A22-1277, Categories: Murder, prosecutorial Misconduct
J. Gilson finds that the trial court properly allowed defendant's criminal prosecution to proceed on charges concerning various gang-related activities associated with the "Golden State" gang. The entire office need not be disqualified due to a single prosecutor's prior representation of defendant, and county prosecutors are subject to the control of the state attorney general. Affirmed.
Court: New Jersey Appellate Division, Judge: Gilson , Filed On: February 21, 2024, Case #: A-0291-33, Categories: prosecutorial Misconduct, Gangs
J. Vigil finds defendant's second trial on sexual assault charges was barred by double jeopardy because the prosecutor's misstatement of defendant's previous conditional discharge as a previous felony conviction was willful misconduct that prevented a retrial. Additionally, the prosecutor used the word "pedophile" five times during closing arguments, mentioned the Catholic Church sexual abuse scandal and attempted to shift the burden of proof onto defendant, all of which prejudiced the jury against him and resulted in a mistrial. Reversed.
Court: New Mexico Supreme Court, Judge: Vigil, Filed On: February 19, 2024, Case #: S-1-SC-38941, Categories: prosecutorial Misconduct, Sex Offender, Double Jeopardy
J. Patton finds defendant was not denied the right to counsel when the assistant prosecutor berated his attorney on several occasions. Although the behavior was unprofessional and briefly interrupted the trial, the trial court admonished the prosecutor in chambers and issued an instruction to the jury, which prevented any structural error. Meanwhile, although the trial court should have included language about defendant's duty to retreat in its jury instruction on self-defense, evidence in the case indicated he was not lawfully at the home of the victim and initiated the dispute that led to the shooting, and so any additional language would not have changed the outcome of the trial. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Patton, Filed On: February 12, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-505, Categories: prosecutorial Misconduct, Assault, Jury Instructions
J. Shorr finds the trial court failed to strike certain statements made by the prosecutor to convict defendant of attempted second-degree murder and other crimes. “The prosecutor’s reference to a statement that was not admitted in evidence, and invitation to the jury to infer that the contents of that statement would not have benefitted defendant…deprived defendant of a fair trial.” Reversed.
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals, Judge: Shorr, Filed On: February 7, 2024, Case #: A177836, Categories: Murder, prosecutorial Misconduct
J. Baker finds that counsel was not deficient for deciding not to challenge questions the state asked defendant during his robbery trial. The prosecutor's "were they lying" questions were permissible because the credibility of the witnesses was a principal issue in determining his guilt. And in the context of his line of questioning, the prosecutor was not expressing a personal opinion when he asked, "You could just tell the truth, couldn't you?" Affirmed.
Court: Montana Supreme Court, Judge: Baker, Filed On: February 6, 2024, Case #: DA 22-0429, Categories: Ineffective Assistance, prosecutorial Misconduct, Robbery
J. Piper finds the admission of a detective's testimony about the silence of defendant's brother during a police interview did not violate defendant's fair trial rights. Although it attacked defendant's credibility, he had already changed his story several times and admitted to the jury he lied to police; therefore, the testimony did not act as a "credibility tiebreaker." Meanwhile, the prosecution's question to defendant about his decision to remain silent after his arrest did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct because it was part of a valid cross-examination and was used to impeach defendant about his previous version of events. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Piper, Filed On: February 5, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-382, Categories: Fair Trial, Murder, prosecutorial Misconduct
Per curiam, the appeals court finds the prosecution deprived defendant of a fair trial in his case on drug charges by making multiple inappropriate statements to the jury, including offering their personal opinions regarding defendant's guilt, insinuating defendant committed money laundering he was not charged with, and a "blatant misuse" of certain evidence. The prosecutor's comments, though unopposed by defense counsel, constitute fundamental errors, and defendant's judgment and conviction are overturned and his case is remanded for a new trial. Reversed.
Court: Florida Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: February 2, 2024, Case #: 23-0485, Categories: Drug Offender, prosecutorial Misconduct
J. Vaidik finds that defendant was improperly convicted of the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter in light of the prosecutor's closing statements concerning the eggshell-victim doctrine because the contention that defendant was guilty regardless of intent to cause bodily harm muddied the issue of whether defendant knowingly killed the victim. Reversed.
Court: Indiana Court Of Appeals, Judge: Vaidik, Filed On: January 24, 2024, Case #: 23A-CR-783, Categories: Intent, prosecutorial Misconduct, Manslaughter
J. Zamora finds the appeals court improperly vacated defendant's second-degree murder conviction. While the prosecutor violated defendant's constitutional rights when they commented on his post-arrest silence during opening arguments, defendant was not prejudiced. He admitted he killed the victim at the scene of the crime and the jury was tasked only with determining whether provocation existed to justify the murder. Even if fully credited, defendant's testimony failed to establish the victim intended to harm him or was plotting with others to kill him, and so his decision to remain silent after he was arrested was immaterial to the case. Reversed.
Court: New Mexico Supreme Court, Judge: Zamora, Filed On: January 22, 2024, Case #: S-1-SC-39294, Categories: Murder, prosecutorial Misconduct, Self Incrimination
J. Wilkinson finds the lower court properly granted the investigator summary judgment regarding the teenager's First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims. A woman who had been raped and robbed called the police and identified the teenager as one of the two men responsible. DNA eventually showed that the teenager was likely not involved but the investigator had probable cause to interrogate him based on the victim's identification. Affirmed.
Court: 4th Circuit, Judge: Wilkinson, Filed On: January 5, 2024, Case #: 22-1788, Categories: Burglary, prosecutorial Misconduct, Sex Offender