Right to a fair trial; Prosecutorial misconduct; Reference to a defense witness’s outstanding warrant; Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object

The court found no plain error in the prosecution’s closing argument reference to a defense witness (C) having an outstanding warrant and also rejected defendant’s claim that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object. Defendant was convicted of CCW and resisting or obstructing a police officer after a traffic stop conducted by Officer T. The court noted that the trial court “incorrectly stated after closing arguments, when expressing distaste for the prosecution’s reference to the warrant, that there ‘was[n’t] any evidence in this trial relating to witness [C] having a warrant for her arrest.’ First, there was a reference to the warrant heard on the body cam footage played to the jury with no objection. Second,” T stated during his testimony that there was a warrant out for C’s arrest. “Given these references during trial to [C’s] warrant, the remark made during closing did in fact reference evidence that was already admitted at trial. Defense counsel specifically asked about the warrant during [T’s] cross examination, thus opening the door for rebuttal on this point by the prosecution. Further, considering the brevity of the reference to the warrant in closing, and that the warrant had been previously mentioned with no objection earlier in the case, as well as considering the evidence presented at trial supporting the verdict and sentence in this case,” the court concluded it could not be said that defendant met her burden to show “error that seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the trial proceedings.” It also found no merit in her ineffective assistance claim, holding that “defense counsel’s failure to object at closing was not legally deficient considering that the evidence had already been presented multiple times at trial, via [T’s] testimony and video evidence played for the jury.” Affirmed.