 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Brown v. Commonwealth6/16/2005
tnesses,' is consistent with the wide discretion trial courts have always had over the nature and scope of redirect and recross examination." Robert G. Lawson, The Kentucky Evidence Law Handbook, § 3.20 , at 245 (4th ed. LexisNexis 2003) (quoting KRE 611(a)) (internal footnotes omitted). Given the trial court's wide discretion to allow this inquiry, and the fact that the testimony was otherwise admissible as impeachment evidence, Appellant suffered no manifest injustice from its admission.
Appellant also claims that the trial court committed palpable error by permitting the prosecutor to engage in misconduct during his closing argument. In considering alleged prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument, we review to determine "whether the conduct was of such an 'egregious' nature as to deny the accused his constitutional right of due process of law." Slaughter v. Commonwealth, 744 S.W.2d 407, 411 (Ky. 1987). Appellant bases his first allegation of prosecutorial misconduct upon a comparison of the prosecutor's pretrial representations, noted above, with statements in his closing argument in which he invited the jury to draw an inference that Appellant and Kaylor were racing at some point during the events leading up to the collision. In closing argument, " t is the duty of the prosecuting attorney to confine himself to the facts in evidence and fair inferences that may be drawn therefrom." Williams v. Commonwealth, 644 S.W.2d 335, 338 (Ky. 1982). While no witness in the case sub judice explicitly testified that Appellant was racing with Kaylor, there was evidence adduced at trial that supported an inference that Appellant and Kaylor were racing one another before Kaylor slowed his vehicle to turn off of Pembroke Road. The prosecutor relied on this evidence as an illustration of the general manner in which Appellant was operating his vehicle during the time leading up to the collision, arguing: "Is racing an issue here? I don't know. Is driving fast an issue? Absolutely." The prosecutor's closing argument was not inconsistent with his pretrial representations, as Kaylor did not testify that he and Appellant were racing. However, admissible evidence heard by the jury supported that inference, and the prosecutor's pretrial statements were not misleading; thus, Appellant suffered no manifest injustice from this part of the Commonwealth's closing argument.
Finally, Appellant asserts palpable error arising from a portion of the closing argument in which the prosecutor stated, "Kaylor pled guilty to first-degree wanton endangerment for operating his vehicle in the manner he did." Appellant argues that this statement constituted both bolstering of Kaylor's testimony and an improper characterization of Kaylor's Alford plea. Both claims are meritless. Nothing in the statements cited by Appellant indicates that the prosecutor vouched for the credibility of Kaylor's testimony. Compare Armstrong v. Commonwealth, 517 S.W.2d 233, 236 (Ky. 1974) (prosecutor's closing argument was improper bolstering where he told jury that he had known and worked with witness for a long time and that witness was honest and conscientious). Moreover, the prosecutor committed no misconduct in referring to the Alford plea as a guilty plea. See Alford, 400 U.S. at 37, 91 S.Ct. at 167 ("the Constitution is concerned with practical consequences, not the formal categorizations, of state law"). Furthermore, " n Alford plea is a 'plea of guilty,' regardless of any denial of underlying facts. .. ." Pettiway v. Commonwealth, 860 S.W.2d 766, 767 (Ky. 1993). No manifest injustice resulted from this reference.
Accordingly, the judgment of convictions and the sentences imposed by the Christian Circuit Court are AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Kentucky DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|