State v. Bujnowski
130 N.H. 1, 532 A.2d 1385, 1987 N.H. LEXIS 264 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prosecutor's repeated statements of personal opinion regarding a witness's credibility and the defendant's guilt during closing arguments constitute prosecutorial overreaching and reversible error, as such intentional misconduct may render a trial court's curative instructions ineffective.
Facts:
- Richard Bujnowski was accused of sexually assaulting his ten-year-old stepson.
- At trial, the defense called Bujnowski's wife as a witness.
- Mrs. Bujnowski testified that the victim had previously stated that the assault never occurred.
- Mrs. Bujnowski also testified that the victim had told her the story was a fabrication.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard Bujnowski was tried by a jury in a New Hampshire trial court for aggravated felonious sexual assault.
- During closing arguments, the prosecutor stated his personal belief that a defense witness was lying.
- Defense counsel objected and moved for a mistrial; the trial court denied the motion but agreed to give a curative instruction.
- The prosecutor then repeated his personal opinions about witness credibility and stated his personal belief that the defendant was guilty.
- The defendant renewed his motion for a mistrial, which the court again denied, opting instead to issue a curative instruction asking the jury to ignore the prosecutor's personal opinions.
- The jury returned a verdict convicting Richard Bujnowski.
- Bujnowski (appellant) appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, arguing the prosecutor’s comments denied him a fair trial.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a prosecutor's repeated expression of personal opinion on witness credibility and the defendant's guilt during closing arguments constitute reversible error that deprives the defendant of a fair trial, despite the trial court's curative instruction to the jury?
Opinions:
Majority - Thayer, J.
Yes. A prosecutor's repeated expression of personal opinion on witness credibility and the defendant's guilt constitutes reversible error. It is improper for a prosecutor to state personal opinions as to witness credibility or the guilt of the accused because a prosecutor's opinion carries significant weight with the jury, and their duty is to seek justice, not merely a conviction. In this case, the prosecutor first stated his belief that a defense witness was lying, was admonished, and then immediately repeated his opinions about witness credibility and capped it off by stating, 'I think he's guilty.' This intentional, repetitive misconduct, especially after being warned by the court, was so egregious that it likely rendered the court's curative instructions meaningless, particularly in a case that hinged on witness credibility. The State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this misconduct did not affect the verdict.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict ethical prohibition against prosecutors expressing personal opinions on evidence, witness credibility, or a defendant's guilt. It establishes that some forms of prosecutorial misconduct are so egregious and intentional that they cannot be cured by a judge's instruction to the jury. The case serves as a stern warning that repetitive and deliberate misconduct will be treated as prejudicial error requiring reversal, especially in credibility-driven cases where a prosecutor's authoritative opinion could improperly sway the jury's verdict.
