404 P.3d 223
Alaska Ct. App.2017Background
- Devin M. Rossiter (18) was tried for second-degree murder and evidence tampering after stabbing Nick Stachelrodt during an altercation when Stachelrodt pulled Rossiter from a car he was rifling through; Stachelrodt died from a chest wound.
- Rossiter’s defense was self-defense (including a reasonable, even if mistaken, belief of imminent deadly harm or sexual assault) and, alternatively, heat-of-passion manslaughter.
- Before closing, the prosecutor provided a PowerPoint to the court and defense; slides included the statement “Nick Stachelrodt did not deserve to die” and suggested acquittal required finding the victim deserved to die.
- In summation the prosecutor repeatedly framed the legal question as whether the victim deserved to die and argued jurors must conclude Stachelrodt “deserved what he got” to acquit or find self-defense; he also attacked the legitimacy of the self-defense theory as a contrived ruse by defense counsel.
- The jury convicted Rossiter of second-degree murder; on appeal the court found the prosecutor’s slides and closing argument mischaracterized self-defense, improperly disparaged the defense, and that the cumulative effect was not harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutor impermissibly shifted burden or mischaracterized self-defense | Prosecutor argued jury must conclude victim "deserved to die" to acquit; State defended argument as rhetorical and within bounds | Rossiter contended the argument misstated the law by making acquittal dependent on victim deserving death, shifting burden and distorting self-defense law | Court: Held prosecutor grossly mischaracterized self-defense and that error required reversal (plain error) |
| Whether prosecutor improperly disparaged legitimacy of defense | State implied defense counsel invented sexual-assault claim to manipulate jurors; State suggested defense was a subterfuge | Rossiter argued this disparaged the legal defense and attacked counsel rather than evidence | Court: Held the argument impermissibly disparaged the defense and suggested a conniving subterfuge; improper |
| Whether cumulative errors were harmless or required reversal | State argued errors were not outcome-determinative | Rossiter argued errors appreciably affected jury decision-making and undermined fairness | Court: Reversed murder conviction, concluding cumulative and inflammatory nature of slides/arguments appreciably affected verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- David v. State, 698 P.2d 1233 (Alaska App. 1985) (self-defense statutory framework and reasonable mistake doctrine)
- Williams v. State, 789 P.2d 365 (Alaska App. 1990) (distinguishing permissible credibility argument from impermissible disparagement of a legal defense)
- State v. McDonald, 472 A.2d 424 (Me. 1984) (discussing impermissible argument that a defense is a subterfuge)
- Rogers v. State, 280 P.3d 582 (Alaska App. 2012) (discussing McDonald and disparagement of defense theory)
- Love v. State, 457 P.2d 622 (Alaska 1969) (harmless-error standard for non-constitutional error)
- Jeffries v. State, 169 P.3d 913 (Alaska 2007) (defining second-degree murder mens rea as heightened recklessness equivalent to purposeful or knowing homicide)