 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Delacruz v. State9/1/2000
Appeal from the District Court of Park County The Honorable H. Hunter Patrick, Judge
In this appeal, the Appellant, Carlos H. Delacruz, who was convicted by a jury of possession of more than three grams of methamphetamine on October 23, 1998, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1031(c)(ii) (1998 Cum. Supp.), and delivery of methamphetamine on June 3, 1998, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1031(a)(ii) (Michie 1997), asserts that plain error occurred when the prosecutor in closing argument allegedly vouched for the credibility and truthfulness of the prosecution's main witness, a confidential informant, who testified about the June 3, 1998, event. Delacruz points specifically to the following instances:
1. As you, I'm sure, are aware, the state doesn't choose the witnesses. Those people who know the defendant and are around the defendant are the ones that the state must rely upon to prove their case. This includes the Raelene Hamptons and the Ronda Cards of this world. We take them as they are. We must accept them as witnesses even if they've been involved with methamphetamine. We must accept them as witnesses because they are the people who know what happened. They are the people who know the truth.
2. When you cast a play in hell, you don't get angels as actors. And that's what the state dealt with in this case.
3. Ms. Hampton took the - the witness stand. I submit to you that she was both credible and believable, not your typical drug user.
4. More than that is the question of what makes sense, the question of credibility, the question of why the state's witnesses would lie about what happened. Your common sense will tell you that, with respect to these charges and leading up to the offenses, they have no reason to come into this courtroom and orchestrate a lie.
Delacruz contends that these remarks were "not just 'inartful' statements," but rather " he prosecution essentially was saying to the jury, I believe Ms. Hampton even though she has all of these flaws and there are these doubts, so you the jury should also believe her and ignore all of her flaws and any doubt as to her credibility and truthfulness."
Having reviewed Delacruz's assertion by the application of the standard of plain error, in light of our cases addressing claims of prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument, we hold that the prosecutor's remarks do not qualify as vouching for the credibility of the government's witness. Finding no violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law, we affirm Delacruz's convictions.
Delacruz and the State agree that " t is improper for the prosecuting attorney, even in responding to defense arguments, to personally vouch for the credibility of the State's witnesses." Harper v. State, 970 P.2d 400, 403 (Wyo. 1998) (citations omitted). About the first two statements of which Delacruz complains, we agree with the State's view that they simply express recognition that, as the evidence revealed, in a drug prosecution the government's witnesses usually are those persons who associate with the accused and who have substance abuse problems; these persons know what happened and what the truth is because, as the evidence revealed, they were eyewitnesses to the very criminal activity with which the accused is charged. About the third statement, Delacruz has failed to recite the more complete passage from which the isolated remark is plucked. Immediately following the isolated remark, the prosecutor explained the evidence from which the jury could draw the proper inference that Ms. Hampton was both credible and believable:
Ms. Hampton took the - the witness stand. I submit to you that she wa
Page 1 2 Wyoming DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|