Quinlivan v. State
Decision Date | 01 March 1991 |
Citation | 579 So.2d 1386 |
Parties | Joseph D. QUINLIVAN, Jr. v. STATE. CR 89-728. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
W. Lloyd Copeland and Barry Hess, Mobile, for appellant.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and J. Thomas Leverette, Asst. Atty. Gen., Mobile, for appellee.
The appellant, Joseph D. Quinlivan, Jr., was convicted of manslaughter, in violation of § 13A-6-3, Code of Alabama 1975. He was sentenced to 12 years in the state penitentiary.
The appellant was initially convicted of manslaughter on April 14, 1988, but that conviction was reversed and the case was remanded. Quinlivan v. State, 555 So.2d 802 (Ala.Cr.App.1989). In the present appeal, the appellant raises six issues. However, this court finds it necessary to address only one of those issues, because it is dispositive of this appeal.
During the prosecutor's rebuttal closing argument, the following occurred:
This, the appellant argues, was so prejudicial so as to deprive the appellant of a fair trial. We must agree.
Over a half century ago, the United States Supreme Court put special restraints on a prosecutor during closing arguments because of his unique role in the criminal justice system:
Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88, 55 S.Ct. 629, 633, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935).
However, United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 7, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1042, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985). Accordingly, the legal profession has set up guidelines in an attempt to police prosecutorial misconduct.
One example of this effort is the American Bar Association's (ABA) Standards for Criminal Justice, one of which states that
"[i]t is unprofessional conduct for the prosecutor to express his or her personal belief or opinion as to the truth or falsity of any testimony or evidence or the guilt of the defendant." ABA Standards for Criminal Justice 3-5.8(b) (2d ed. 1986 Supp.).
Another example is the ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 7-106(C) (1989), which provides, in pertinent part:
See also ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.4(e) (1989).
The underlying reasons against allowing such argument by prosecutors are expressed most eloquently by Chief Justice Burger in Young, supra:
"The prosecutor's vouching for the credibility of witnesses and expressing his personal opinion concerning the guilt of the accused pose two dangers: such comments can convey the impression that evidence not presented to the jury, but known to the prosecutor, supports the charges against the defendant and can thus jeopardize the defendant's right to be tried solely on the basis of the evidence presented to the jury; and the prosecutor's opinion carries with it the imprimatur of the Government and may induce the jury to trust the Government's judgment rather than its own view of the evidence."
470 U.S. at 18-19, 105 S.Ct. at 1047-48. See also Annot., 88 A.L.R.3d 449 § 2[a] (1978).
The United States Court of Appeals has, on more than one occasion, addressed arguments of this exact nature. In United States v. Lamerson, 457 F.2d 371 (5th Cir.1972), the prosecutor made the following statement to the jury:
After finding this to be reversible error, the court held:
Alabama courts have also had occasion to address the propriety of such arguments:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Allen v. State
...Services, Inc., 639 So.2d 513, 515 (Ala.1994). The cases relied upon by the appellant are distinguishable. In Quinlivan v. State, 579 So.2d 1386, 1387 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. quashed, 596 So.2d 658 (Ala.1991), the prosecutor, in rebuttal closing argument stated, "I'm not obliged to try any cas......
-
Mack v. State
...capital murder. about a defendant's guilt or innocence. Jones v. Butler, 864 F.2d 348, 359-60 (5th Cir.1988); accord, Quinlivan v. State, 579 So.2d 1386 (Ala.Cr.Appl.1991). A defendant's guilt or innocence is to be determined by a jury of his or her peers after the presentation of That said......
-
Smiley v. State
...instructions given the next day were sufficient to eradicate prejudice). We find the present case distinguishable from Quinlivan v. State, 579 So.2d 1386 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. quashed, 596 So.2d 658 (Ala.1991). In Quinlivan, the prosecutor stated in his closing argument that he was "not obli......
-
Huff v. State
...jury box, you can't instruct the jury not to smell it.' " Dunn v. United States, 307 F.2d 883, 886 (5th Cir.1962).' " Quinlivan v. State, 579 So.2d 1386, 1389 (Ala.Cr.App.), writ quashed, 596 So.2d 658 (Ala.1991), quoting United States v. Garza, 608 F.2d 659, 666 (5th Cir.1979). We have a d......