Prosecutorial error; Questioning about defendant not having a license or insurance on his vehicle; Distinguishing People v Robinson; Prosecutor “outburst” allegedly denigrating defense counsel; Rebuttal argument; Appeal to the jury’s civic duty; Prejudice

Concluding that defendant was not denied his right to a fair trial, the court affirmed his conviction of receiving or concealing stolen property with a value of $1,000 or more but less than $20,000. The case arose out of the theft of a camper trailer. Defendant argued “that the prosecutor erred by asking him and his girlfriend questions about him not having a license or insurance on his truck in front of the jury.” He relied on Robinson. But Robinson did not apply here. There, “the prosecutor knew that evidence about the stolen car was inadmissible at trial, but nevertheless deliberately elicited the defendant’s testimony about it in front of the jury. This error was compounded by the trial court’s inexplicable decision to allow the prosecutor to continue the improper line of questioning.” In this case, “the prosecutor’s remarks—and the trial court’s response—were far less egregious. The prosecutor’s questions about defendant’s lack of a license and insurance, though likely improper, were very brief. Further, unlike Robinson, the trial court in this case correctly responded to defense counsel’s objection by instructing the prosecutor to ask more appropriate questions.” The court held that the brief mention of his “lack of a license or insurance, in light of the admissible evidence at trial, did not prejudice defendant so much as to deny him his right to a fair trial.” He also claimed “the prosecutor’s ‘outburst’ improperly denigrated defense counsel ‘by making it seem like defense counsel was asking absurd questions.’” The court found that he mischaracterized the prosecutor’s statements. The “exchange occurred after defense counsel repeatedly asked [a witness] questions about his possible sentence had he not entered into a plea deal with the prosecution. The prosecutor objected to these questions about ‘possible sentences’ countless times, and the trial court repeatedly instructed defense counsel that his questioning was improper because it oversimplified the extensive considerations that go into sentencing a criminal defendant. This ‘outburst,’ as defendant calls it, was the result of defense counsel’s decision to disobey the trial court’s instructions.” Nothing about this exchange suggested “the prosecutor was trying to denigrate defense counsel.” While the court found “the prosecutor’s rebuttal argument included an improper appeal to the jury’s civic duty” it concluded the “brief remark was insufficient to overcome the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt that was properly presented to the jury.”