State v. Holt
| Decision Date | 27 June 2018 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 45079 |
| Parties | STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MICHELLE A. HOLT, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Idaho Court of Appeals |
Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. John T. Mitchell, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction, affirmed.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
____________________
Michelle A. Holt appeals from her judgment of conviction entered after a jury found her guilty of possession of methamphetamine. Holt makes two arguments on appeal. First, Holt argues the State committed prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument. Second, Holt asserts the district court violated her right to maintain innocence, her right to appeal, and her right to due process. Because there is no evidence of prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument or unconstitutional questions during the sentencing hearing, we affirm the district court's judgment of conviction.
Holt was charged with felony possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, Idaho Code § 37-2732(c)(1). The case proceeded to trial where the State presented two witnesses, an officer, and a forensic scientist. The officer testified that he stopped Holt for an active arrest warrant, arrested her, and then searched her incident to the arrest. During the search, the officer found a baggie of crystal substance in Holt's jacket pocket that resembled methamphetamine. The forensic scientist testified that he tested the crystal substance and concluded, to a reasonable degree of professional and scientific certainty, that the substance was methamphetamine.
Holt testified in her own defense. Holt explained that in a rush to head to the store, she grabbed and put on clothes that were not her own. Holt testified that she hastily grabbed her outfit from a bag containing her friend's second-hand clothes that were ultimately to be donated.
During closing argument, the State discussed the elements of the drug possession charge. The State explained:
The second part of element number three is that she possessed any amount of methamphetamine, so what a substance is, again, I submit to you that that's not really an issue for you. You can kind of check off that portion of the element. You heard from [the forensic scientist], who has over a decade of experience working as a scientist, tested this substance. He told you it's methamphetamine, so no real doubt as to that element, that it was methamphetamine, so the only word in element number three that you really have to look at is possessed . . . .
The jury found Holt guilty of possession of methamphetamine. The district court sentenced Holt to a unified term of seven years, with three years determinate, and retained jurisdiction. Holt timely appeals.
Holt asserts the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument. Holt argues the prosecutor's misconduct constitutes fundamental error requiring this Court to vacate Holt's conviction. Holt claims that, pursuant to the first prong of State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209, 245 P.3d 961 (2010), her right to a fair trial was violated when the prosecutor misrepresented the State's burden of proof and bolstered the State's expert witness testimony during closing argument. We disagree.
While our system of criminal justice is adversarial in nature, and the prosecutor is expected to be diligent and leave no stone unturned, the prosecutor is nevertheless expected and required to be fair. State v. Field, 144 Idaho 559, 571, 165 P.3d 273, 285 (2007). However, inreviewing allegations of prosecutorial misconduct we must keep in mind the realities of trial. Id. A fair trial is not necessarily a perfect trial. Id.
Holt made no contemporaneous objection to the prosecutor's closing argument at trial. In Perry, the Idaho Supreme Court clarified the fundamental error doctrine as it applies to allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. If the alleged misconduct was not followed by a contemporaneous objection, an appellate court should reverse when the defendant persuades the court that the alleged error: (1) violates one or more of the defendant's unwaived constitutional rights; (2) is clear or obvious without the need for reference to any additional information not contained in the appellate record; and (3) affected the outcome of the trial proceedings. Perry, 150 Idaho at 226, 245 P.3d at 978.
Each statement that Holt objects to on appeal occurred during the prosecutor's closing argument. Closing argument serves to sharpen and clarify the issues for resolution by the trier of fact in a criminal case. State v. Phillips, 144 Idaho 82, 86, 156 P.3d 583, 587 (Ct. App. 2007). Its purpose is to enlighten the jury and to help the jurors remember and interpret the evidence. Id.; State v. Reynolds, 120 Idaho 445, 450, 816 P.2d 1002, 1007 (Ct. App. 1991). Both sides have traditionally been afforded considerable latitude in closing argument to the jury and are entitled to discuss fully, from their respective standpoints, the evidence and the inferences to be drawn therefrom. State v. Sheahan, 139 Idaho 267, 280, 77 P.3d 956, 969 (2003); Phillips, 144 Idaho at 86, 156 P.3d at 587.
Closing argument should not include counsel's personal opinions and beliefs about the credibility of a witness or the guilt or innocence of the accused. Phillips, 144 Idaho at 86, 156 P.3d at 587. See also State v. Garcia, 100 Idaho 108, 110-11, 594 P.2d 146, 148-49 (1979); State v. Priest, 128 Idaho 6, 14, 909 P.2d 624, 632 (Ct. App. 1995); State v. Ames, 109 Idaho 373, 376, 707 P.2d 484, 487 (Ct. App. 1985). A prosecuting attorney may express an opinion in argument as to the truth or falsity of testimony or the guilt of the defendant when such opinion is based upon the evidence, but the prosecutor should exercise caution to avoid interjecting his or her personal belief and should explicitly state that the opinion is based solely on inferences from evidence presented at trial. Phillips, 144 Idaho at 86 n.1, 156 P.3d at 587 n.1. The safer course is for a prosecutor to avoid the statement of opinion, as well as the disfavored phrases "I think" and "I believe" altogether. Id.
Appeals to emotion, passion, or prejudice of the jury through the use of inflammatory tactics are impermissible. Id. at 87, 156 P.3d at 588. See also State v. Raudebaugh, 124 Idaho 758, 769, 864 P.2d 596, 607 (1993); State v. Pecor, 132 Idaho 359, 367, 972 P.2d 737, 745 (Ct. App. 1998). The prosecutor's closing argument should not include disparaging comments about opposing counsel. Phillips, 144 Idaho at 86, 156 P.3d at 587. See also Sheahan, 139 Idaho at 280, 77 P.3d at 969; State v. Brown, 131 Idaho 61, 69, 951 P.2d 1288, 1296 (Ct. App. 1998); State v. Baruth, 107 Idaho 651, 657, 691 P.2d 1266, 1272 (Ct. App. 1984).
Pursuant to the first prong of Perry, Holt asserts that her right to a fair trial was violated when the prosecutor misrepresented the State's burden of proof. During closing argument, the prosecutor asserted that the case was straightforward with only four elements to the crime, all of which were contained in Jury Instruction Number 12. Jury Instruction Number 12 stated:
After briefly summarizing how the date and location of the crime must be proven, the prosecutor summarily concluded the jury heard testimony during trial to prove these two elements. The prosecutor utilized the same approach to present the third element of the crime, which is at issue on appeal.
To prove the third element of the crime of possession, the State must prove the defendant "possessed any amount of methamphetamine," therein requiring the State to prove the identity of the defendant, the act of possession, and the identity of the substance in possession. Here, the prosecutor explained the defendant's identity was not in question because Holt was identified and testified at trial. The prosecutor then addressed the identity of the substance in question and concluded In support of the conclusion, the prosecutor described the testimony of the expertwitness, who tested the substance and determined it was methamphetamine. Finally, as to whether Holt knew the substance was methamphetamine--element number four--the prosecutor argued there was evidence Holt had a baggie in her pocket and her hands were inside the same pocket.
Holt argues that during closing argument, the prosecutor misrepresented the State's burden of proof by telling the jurors there was no doubt as to whether the State had proven the substance was methamphetamine. We are not persuaded by Holt's argument in this regard. The prosecutor presented the elements of the crime and attempted to explain why each element was proven by the evidence at trial. The only evidence that the substance was methamphetamine was provided by the testimony...
To continue reading
Request your trial