State
v. Scales, 2017 VT 6
SKOGLUND, J. In September 2014,
defendant was tried and convicted of three felony counts of lewd and lascivious
conduct with a child that occurred between June 1, 2004 and June 1, 2006. He
appeals his convictions, arguing that . . . the prosecutor’s closing “golden
rule” argument improperly asked the jurors to put themselves in the position of
a party—here, the purported victim:
As adults, no one would want to ever come into court . . . and say, okay, I’m going to talk now about my first sexual experience. . . . . Imagine how difficult it would be for an adult, and then put yourself in the eyes of twelve year-old child, and how difficult and challenging it would have been for her, and for her to come here, as wel We reverse and remand
This Court has condemned arguments
made to the jury in which the prosecutor makes inflammatory statements or
appeals to the sympathies of the jury. See State v. Bubar, 146 Vt. 398, 403,
505 A.2d 1197, 1200 (1985). This rule is well established. More than seventy
years ago in Duchaine v. Ray, we noted that counsel’s urging of jurors to place
themselves in the victim’s shoes was a “highly improper” and a “lamentable
departure” from the rule against appeals to jurors’ prejudice. 110 Vt. 313,
321, 6 A.2d 28, 32 (1939). As in State v. Madigan, the prosecutor’s statements
“exceeded the bounds of fair and temperate discussion, circumscribed by the
evidence and inferences properly drawn therefrom.” 2015 VT 59, ¶ 31, 199 Vt.
211, 122 A.3d 517.
Reversed and remanded.
No comments:
Post a Comment