 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Prieto4/21/2005
prosecutor's statement that the fibers from the windshield were from the hat overstated the evidence. At trial, the fiber expert testified that the fibers were consistent. The expert could not render an opinion that they were the same.
The statement by the prosecutor that the elements on the drywall were the same elements found on the jeans was not an overstatement of the evidence and accurately represented the particle expert's testimony.
We cannot say, based upon our review of the record, that the statement concerning fibers so undermined the fundamental fairness of the trial as to cast serious doubt on the reliability of the conviction. Here, DNA taken from the cap linked defendant to the baseball cap. Further, the interior impact to the windshield, attributed to being struck by the driver's head, provided further evidence from which the jury could have concluded that defendant was driving the car, without relying upon the prosecutor's inappropriate argument. Consequently, we conclude that there was no plain error.
The judgment is affirmed.
JUDGE WEBB and JUDGE GRAHAM concur.
|