Summary
The Nebraska Supreme Court held that the prosecutor’s improper closing arguments, including disparaging remarks about the defendant and defense counsel, constituted plain error that denied the defendant a fair trial. The court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and therefore did not bar retrial under double jeopardy principles.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the prosecutor's inflammatory descriptions of Barfield and disparaging comments about defense counsel during closing argument constituted plain error requiring reversal and a new trial.
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for felony murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a felon.
- Whether double jeopardy barred a new trial because the evidence was allegedly insufficient.
Holdings
- The prosecutor's cumulative and egregious inflammatory remarks, including the insinuation that defense attorneys are liars, constituted plain error because leaving the misconduct uncorrected would damage the integrity, reputation, and fairness of the judicial process and denied Barfield a fair trial.
- The evidence was sufficient for a rational fact finder to conclude that Clinton committed attempted robbery because, while threatening the victim with a gun, he attempted to take the victim's property by force or intimidation with intent to permanently deprive the victim of it.
- The evidence was sufficient to support Barfield's convictions as an aider and abettor because his provision of the firearm, continued presence, and repeated encouragement constituted participation in Clinton's attempted robbery. An aider and abettor need not personally proximately cause the underlying crime; proximate cause is generally satisfied by the principal's conduct.
- Double jeopardy did not bar retrial because the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was legally sufficient to support each conviction.
Key quotations
“Public prosecutors are charged with the duty to conduct criminal trials in such a manner that the accused may have a fair and impartial trial.” ([4]-[6])
“In essence, the prosecutor insinuated that defense lawyers are all liars. This is gravely improper.” ([6])
“Considering the context of the prosecutor's remarks and the trial as a whole, we find this to be a rare instance in which unobjected-to prosecutorial misconduct constitutes plain error demanding a retrial.” ([6])
Factual background
The victim was killed by a single gunshot during a confrontation at an apartment in Douglas County, Nebraska. The State's witnesses testified that Barfield provided his nephew, Clinton Lamar Barfield, with a gun, encouraged him to conduct a so-called pocket check, and continued encouraging the confrontation after the participants briefly dispersed. The defense presented evidence that Barfield arrived only after the shooting or was an innocent bystander. The prosecutor made repeated inflammatory references to Barfield and suggested during rebuttal that defense attorneys lie.
Procedural history
Barfield was tried and convicted in the district court, which denied his motion for new trial and imposed consecutive sentences. On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court held that the prosecutor's repeated inflammatory descriptions of Barfield and disparaging comments about defense counsel constituted plain error requiring reversal. The court determined that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, so retrial was not barred by double jeopardy, and remanded for a new trial.
Remand instructions
Reverse the convictions and remand the cause for a new trial.