 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Miller2/19/2002
r argues that the prosecutor's comment misstated the law in that it suggests Miller had the burden of proving self-defense, when in fact the State bears the burden of proving the absence of self-defense. State v. Roberts, 88 Wn.2d 337, 345, 562 P.2d 1259 (1977).
The comment - 'the only way you can find that these killings were justified is if you believe his story' - was not one that would mislead the jury into shifting the burden of proof. In context, the prosecutor was arguing that the State had carried its burden to prove absence of self defense, and that Miller's effort to rebut the State's proof lacked credibility. In addition, the jury was instructed to disregard counsel's comments not supported by the law or evidence. Even if the argument was obscure, the jury is presumed to follow the court's instruction. State v. Traweek, 43 Wn. App. 99, 108, 715 P.2d 1148 (1986), disapproved of on other grounds, State v. Blair, 117 Wn.2d 479, 491, 816 P.2d 718 (1991). The self-defense instruction given by the court properly and unequivocally stated that, The state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the homicide was not justifiable. If you find that the state has not proved the absence of this defense beyond a reasonable doubt, it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.
We conclude the remark was not grounds for reversal.
Affirmed.
|