State v. Brunnemer, 401 P.3d 1226

Defendant tried jointly on multiple domestic-violence charges; state relied primarily on victim C’s testimony and police observations of injuries.
Defense cross-examination emphasized inconsistencies between C’s trial testimony and prior statements; trial court limited use of the word “supposedly” during examination but allowed it at closing.
In closing, defense counsel emphasized inconsistencies and noted defendant had no burden to present evidence.
In rebuttal, prosecutor criticized defense counsel’s attack on C, characterized defense as “mocking” the victim, and told jurors they could remove the words “allegedly/supposedly” — concluding that the defense was “not asking for justice.”
Defense objected and moved for mistrial; trial court denied mistrial, gave general jury instructions about argument not being evidence, and did not give a curative instruction about the prosecutor’s comments.
Jury acquitted on some counts, hung on others, and convicted on eight counts; defendant appealed claiming prosecutorial misconduct and trial-court abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prosecutor’s rebuttal constituted improper personal attack on defense counsel and impermissibly shifted burden	Prosecutor: was criticizing defense argument, not attacking counsel personally; comment was isolated and not prejudicial	Defense: prosecutor improperly attacked counsel for testing witness credibility, implied defense not seeking justice, shifting burden and inviting juror animus	Court: prosecutor’s remarks crossed line, invited jurors to punish defense counsel and were improper
Whether trial court abused discretion by overruling objections and denying mistrial	State: overruling was within discretion; context shows no personal attack	Defense: court should have sustained objection and granted mistrial or offered curative instruction	Court: abuse of discretion; court should have acted to cure prejudice and failed to do so
Whether prosecutorial error was harmless	State: comments isolated and unlikely to affect verdict	Defense: centrality of victim credibility made error prejudicial	Court: not harmless given centrality of complainant’s credibility and mixed jury outcomes
Whether appellate review may consider earlier unobjected-to statements for context	State: earlier statements not objected to so should be isolated	Defense: entire rebuttal provides context for prosecutor’s message	Court: entire rebuttal considered; earlier statements provided context and supported finding of misconduct

State v. Farokhrany, 259 Or. App. 132 (discretion over prosecutorial argument not unbounded)
State v. Lundbom, 96 Or. App. 458 (prosecutorial personal attacks on defense counsel improper)
State v. Logston, 270 Or. App. 296 (trial court abuse where improper argument likely to prejudice and cure insufficient)
State v. Bolt, 108 Or. App. 746 (prejudice from overruling objections to prosecutor’s argument)
State v. Worth, 231 Or. App. 69 (court’s failure to correct prosecutorial misstatements can be reversible)
State v. James Edward Smith, 4 Or. App. 261 (definition of prosecutorial misconduct)
State v. Davis, 336 Or. 19 (harmless-error standard applied to improper argument)
Maney v. Angelozzi, 285 Or. App. 596 (court’s rulings can discredit defense counsel and affect jury)
State v. Seeger, 4 Or. App. 336 (prosecutorial comment prejudicial where jury might otherwise credit defense)
State v. Werder, 112 Or. App. 179 (context can show whether attack is on counsel or defense theory)