Defendant appealed as of right his jury trial convictions of operating a vehicle while impaired, contrary to MCL 257.625(1)(a) and driving with a suspended license, contrary to MCL 257.904(1).
Defendant's was arrested after police observed him sitting on his stopped motorcycle impeding traffic. The arresting officers testified that the defendant admitted at the scene that he had been driving the motorcycle, and the defendant was the only person that police encountered at the scene. However, on the following day while in custody and during testimony at trial, defendant insisted that he had not been driving the motorcycle, and instead an individual he met in a bar had been driving. According to the defendant, this individual disappeared the moment the police arrived at the scene.
An expert witness also testified that the defendant was physically incapable of driving the motorcycle due to past injuries. During her closing argument, the prosecutor referred to defendant's theories of the case as “completely ridiculous”, “ridiculous”, “incredible”, and “a last ditch effort to come up with something because the evidence is so strong.”
The only issue on appeal was whether the prosecutor's statements during closing argument amounted to misconduct warranting reversal. The defendant claimed that the prosecutor denigrated his defense, and introduced her own opinion into the case, thereby denying him his right to a fair trial.
The Court of Appeals disagreed with the defendant. The court stated that the defendant failed to show how any prejudicial effect by the prosecutor's reference to his defense as “ridiculous,” “completely ridiculous,” and “incredible” could not have been cured by a curative instruction or that they were outcome-determinative. In addition, the defendant failed to provide any supporting authority for his argument related to the unpreserved challenges.
Additionally, the court stated that while the prosecutor's statements may appear colorful and harsh, prosecutors are “typically afforded great latitude regarding their arguments and conduct at trial.” A prosecutor may use “hard language” when it is supported by the evidence, and is not required to phrase arguments in bland terms.
The court further stated that while the prosecutor referred to the defendant's theory of the case as a “last ditch” effort because the “evidence of guilt was so strong” a prosecutor may argue that a defendant, based on the facts, is not worthy of belief, and may comment on the on the improbability of a defendant's theory or evidence.
The court concluded that the statements in this case were isolated remarks made during closing argument, and the jury was instructed that the argument was not evidence, and therefore, the defendant was not denied his right to a fair trial.
The case was affirmed. People v. Taylor , case no. 280426, released October 21, 2008.
