stating that "[g]enerally, if no objection was made to . . . improper remarks, the remarks will not be deemed prejudicial" because the "failure to make a timely objection indicates that defense counsel did not believe the remarks were prejudicial" and the court was "deprived of the opportunity to take curative action"
How later courts described this case
- stating that "[g]enerally, if no objection was made to . . . improper remarks, the remarks will not be deemed prejudicial" because the "failure to make a timely objection indicates that defense counsel did not believe the remarks were prejudicial" and the court was "deprived of the opportunity to take curative action"
- holding that the defendant’s forty-four hour interrogation, which began at 12:30 a.m., did not warrant suppression of his interrogation as the questioning was not “round the clock,” the defendant was afforded breaks, and the defendant never indicated that he was too tired or hungry to continue
- holding that due process concerns prevented the court from setting aside plea agreement based solely on prosecutor's failure to notify victim of the State's plea offer
- recognizing that arguments of counsel "can mitigate prejudice resulting from a less-than-perfect charge"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KING, P.J.A.D.
(temporarily assigned), dissenting in part and concurring in part.
For the reasons given by Justice Handler in IV (page 692 to 711, 737 A.2d page 153 to 165) of his dissenting opinion, I agree that prosecutorial misconduct tainted the trial proceeding insofar as the death sentence is concerned. Since the evidence of guilt was so overwhelming I do not think that such misconduct had the capacity to taint the guilt finding. I would remand for a new penalty-phase trial only. In all other respects I join the majority opinion insofar as it affirms the guilty verdict.