Com. v. Clark, L.
Com. v. Clark, L. No. 1289 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 25, 2017Background
- Appellant Lamar Douglas Clark appealed his conviction and sentence following a Lancaster County jury trial; this memorandum is a concurring opinion by Judge Strassburger addressing prosecutor misconduct in closing argument.
- Key witness Veldresha Lucas had pending criminal matters; defense argued those pending charges created bias and suggested undisclosed promises from the Commonwealth for her testimony.
- During closing, defense highlighted Lucas’s pending cases and suggested possible incentive to cooperate; defense also noted inconsistencies in a statement she gave an investigator.
- Prosecutor responded in closing by denying any promises to Lucas and personally vouching for his integrity: stating he is an officer of the court, not corrupt, and that any undisclosed promises would have been revealed through discovery.
- The Majority held the prosecutor’s remarks were a permissible response and did not constitute misconduct; Judge Strassburger agreed with the Majority on sufficiency and jury instructions but dissented on the misconduct conclusion, finding the remarks amounted to improper bolstering.
- The trial court gave standard cautionary jury instructions that attorneys’ opinions should not be considered and told jurors to weigh witness credibility themselves; Judge Strassburger would find those instructions cured any prejudice, making any error harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutor’s closing remarks amounted to improper bolstering/vouching | Prosecutor: remarks were a fair and necessary response to defense insinuations about undisclosed deals; denial was permissible | Clark: remarks placed government prestige behind witness and vouched for witness via prosecutor’s personal credibility | Majority: remarks permissible response; did not constitute misconduct; Concurrence: remarks crossed line but any error harmless due to jury instructions |
| Whether prosecutor’s reference to his own integrity improperly suggested facts not in evidence | Prosecutor: comments explained discovery obligations and absence of deals, not extrinsic evidence | Clark: personal assurances suggested undisclosed information and solicited juror reliance on prosecutor’s credibility | Concurrence: such personal assurances improperly bolstered witness credibility; Majority disagreed |
| Whether defense’s attack on witness credibility by citing pending charges justified prosecutor’s denial | Prosecutor: defense raised insinuation of a deal, so denial directly responsive | Clark: denial went beyond response to improperly elevate prosecutor’s office | Court: denial can be responsive; disputed scope—Majority found response proper; concurrence found response excessive |
| Whether any prosecutorial error required a new trial | Clark: prosecutor’s vouching warranted mistrial/new trial | Commonwealth: trial court instructions cured any potential prejudice | Court: jury presumed to follow instructions; concurrence calls error harmless and would affirm sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Jubilee, 589 A.2d 1112 (Pa. Super. 1991) (prosecutor must limit remarks to evidence and legitimate inferences)
- Commonwealth v. Cherry, 378 A.2d 800 (Pa. 1977) (jury may give special weight to prosecutor’s arguments; caution on prosecutor conduct)
- Commonwealth v. Reid, 99 A.3d 427 (Pa. 2014) (prosecutor improperly bolsters when placing government prestige behind witness or suggesting facts not before the jury)
- Commonwealth v. Strong, 563 A.2d 479 (Pa. 1989) (prosecutor’s categorical denial of promises can be proper response to defense attack on witness credibility)
- Commonwealth v. Culver, 51 A.3d 866 (Pa. Super. 2012) (excessive hyperbole by prosecutor may exceed permissible oratorical flair)
- Commonwealth v. Lopez, 57 A.3d 74 (Pa. Super. 2012) (presumption that jury follows trial court instructions)