Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealtrialprosecutor
defendantappealtrialprosecutor

Related Cases

Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 124 S.Ct. 1256, 157 L.Ed.2d 1166, 72 USLW 4193, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1501, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2293, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 153
View Case »
Hutchinson v. State, 882 So.2d 943, 29 Fla. L. Weekly S337
View Case »
United States v. Hilliard, 851 F.3d 768, 102 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1277
View Case »
Brown v. Commonwealth, 8 Va.App. 126, 380 S.E.2d 8
View Case »
In re Christian S., 7 Cal.4th 768, 872 P.2d 574, 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 33
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Harris v. People, 888 P.2d 259

Facts

On August 11, 1990, LaShawn D. Harris and his friends were walking in Denver when an argument broke out between Harris and another individual, Leech. After Leech left and returned with two companions, an altercation ensued, during which Harris shot one of the companions, Tracy Rudisel, in the chest. Harris was arrested and charged with first-degree assault, admitting to the shooting but claiming self-defense and intoxication. The trial took place shortly after the U.S. initiated military action against Iraq, and the prosecutor made several controversial references to Saddam Hussein during closing arguments.

During the late evening of August 11, 1990, Harris and several of his friends, including Hoover James and a person known as “Leech,” were walking along Denver's 16th Street Mall. Harris and Leech began arguing, and James warned Leech to stop or suffer injury. Leech left the scene, but soon returned with two companions, Tracy Rudisel and David LeMoine. Although James told Rudisel and LeMoine to stay out of the argument between Harris and Leech, Harris and Rudisel then began to argue, and during the course of this argument Harris shot Rudisel in the chest.

Issue

Whether the prosecutor's closing argument, which included comparisons of Harris to Saddam Hussein, constituted prosecutorial misconduct that deprived Harris of a fair trial.

Whether the Prosecution's outrageous closing argument, in which [the defendant] was compared to Saddam Hussein, abrogated [the defendant's] right to a fair trial.

Rule

A prosecutor must not make arguments that appeal to the prejudices of the jury or divert them from their duty to decide the case based solely on the evidence presented.

A prosecutor, while free to strike hard blows, ‘is not at liberty to strike foul ones.’

Analysis

The court found that the prosecutor's repeated references to Saddam Hussein and the Persian Gulf War were irrelevant and constituted improper encouragement for the jurors to use their patriotic feelings in evaluating the evidence. The prosecutor's comments were seen as an attempt to divert the jury's attention from the critical issue of Harris's state of mind at the time of the shooting, which was essential for determining his guilt or innocence.

The prosecutor's repeated references to past and present military operations by and against Saddam Hussein were not only irrelevant but constituted improper encouragement to the jurors to employ their patriotic passions in evaluating the evidence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecutor's improper comments constituted plain error that deprived Harris of a fair trial, leading to the reversal of the Court of Appeals' decision and a remand for a new trial.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The case is remanded to that court with directions to vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand the case to that court for a new trial.

Who won?

LaShawn D. Harris prevailed in the Supreme Court, which found that the prosecutor's conduct during the trial was prejudicial and warranted a new trial.

Harris contends that in the circumstances of this case he is entitled to a new trial because of the prejudicial effect of the prosecutor's improper closing arguments.

You must be