Broadview Hts. v. Thomas

Citations

• 2023 Ohio 4645

Syllabus

Prosecutorial misconduct closing argument standard of review. Defendant was convicted of theft by deception, a misdemeanor of the first degree, for taking a coin from a vendor's table at a coin show and leaving a fraction of the cost of the coin. The prosecutor called witnesses that described defendant's actions. In closing argument, the prosecutor asked the jury to compare the testimony between the witnesses, vouched for one of the witnesses, and generally contrasted the city's witnesses' testimony against defendant's testimony, suggesting defendant's testimony and explanations were incredible. Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument are reviewed to determine if the remarks were improper and, if so, whether they prejudicially affected substantial rights of the defendant. A trial should only be reversed if the effect of the misconduct permeates the entire atmosphere of the trial. The touchstone of analysis is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor. The trial court specifically stated closing arguments were not to be considered evidence. The prosecutor's argument contrasted the prosecutor's witnesses' testimony against the defendant's testimony and suggested that the defendant's testimony and explanations were incredible. After review of the closing argument in its entirety within the context of the trial, the court could not say the closing argument was of such impropriety that it permeated the entire atmosphere of the trial necessitating a finding that the trial itself was unfair.