prosecutor constitute reversible error in Pennsylvania

2024"It is well-established that 'comments by a prosecutor constitute reversible error only where their unavoidable effect is to prejudice the jury, forming in [the jurors'] minds a fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant such that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and 25 render a fair verdict."' Commonwealth v. Arrington, 86 A.3d 831, 853 (Pa. 2014) (quoting Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 727 (Pa. 2013).

2022When on review, “[c]omments by a prosecutor constitute reversible error only where their unavoidable effect is to prejudice the jury, forming in the jurors' minds a fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant such that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and render a fair verdict.” Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 727 (Pa, 2013) (internal markings and citations omitted).

2020Our standard of review of an allegation - 13 - J-S28015-20 of prosecutorial misconduct is well-settled: “Comments by a prosecutor constitute reversible error only where their unavoidable effect is to prejudice the jury, forming in their minds a fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant such that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and render a fair verdict.” Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 25 A.3d 277, 307 (Pa. 2011) (citations and quotation marks omitted).

2019“Comments by a prosecutor constitute reversible error only where their unavoidable effect is to prejudice the jury, forming in [the jurors’] minds a fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant such that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and render a fair verdict.” Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 25 A.3d 277, 307 (Pa. 2011) (citation - 12 - J-A17015-19 omitted).

2021Our “stringent” standard of review for a claim of prosecutorial misconduct stemming from improper argument to the jury is well-settled: “Comments by a prosecutor constitute reversible error only where their unavoidable effect is to prejudice the jury, forming in their minds a fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant such that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and render a fair verdict.” Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 30 A.3d 1111, 1147 (Pa. 2011).

2021See Jones, 912 A.2d at 278 ; Spotz, supra. Next, Wheeler contends that Attorney Lang was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecution’s: (1) closing argument, which included the prosecutor mentioning “notorious offenders” including Nassar, Cosby, and - 19 - J-S23006-21 Sandusky;8 (2) “attacks” on Attorney Lang, which distracted the jury;9 and (3) call for jurors to convict Wheeler to permit Victim to begin to “heal.” 10 Our “stringent” standard of review for a claim of prosecutorial misconduct stemming from improper argument to the jury is well-settled: “Comments by a prosecutor consti

2017In reviewing an allegation of prosecutorial misconduct, we will find that “[c]omments by a prosecutor constitute reversible error only where their unavoidable effect is to prejudice the jury, forming in their minds a fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant such that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and reach a fair verdict.” Commonwealth v. Tedford, 598 Pa. 639 , 960 A.2d 1, 33 (2008).

2017In reviewing an allegation of prosecutorial misconduct, we will find that “[c]omments by a prosecutor constitute reversible error only where their unavoidable effect is to prejudice the jury, forming in their minds a fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant such that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and reach a fair verdict.” Commonwealth v. Tedford, 598 Pa. 639 , 960 A.2d 1, 33 (2008).

2024“It is well- established that comments by a prosecutor constitute reversible error only where their unavoidable effect is to prejudice the jury, forming in the jurors’ minds a fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant such that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and render a fair verdict.” Commonwealth v. - 12 - J-S01015-24 Arrington, 86 A.3d 831, 853 (Pa. 2014) (citation, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted).

2024"It is well-established that 'comments by a prosecutor constitute reversible error only where their unavoidable effect is to prejudice the jury, forming in [the jurors'] minds a fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant such that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and 25 render a fair verdict."' Commonwealth v. Arrington, 86 A.3d 831, 853 (Pa. 2014) (quoting Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 727 (Pa. 2013).

2026As stated by the PCRA court, “[c]omments by a prosecutor constitute reversible error only where their unavoidable effect is to prejudice the jury, forming in the jurors’ minds a fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant such that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and render a fair verdict.” Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 108 A.3d 821, 836 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Anderson, 327 A.3d 273 , 282 (Pa. Super. 2024) (“Reversible error occurs if the prosecutor has deliberately attempted to destroy the factfinder’s objectivity.”).

2022Therefore, [c]omments by a prosecutor constitute reversible error only where their unavoidable effect is to prejudice the jury, forming in the jurors’ minds a fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant such that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and render a fair verdict. -8- J-S32035-22 Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 108 A.3d 821, 836 (Pa. 2014) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) Here, the prosecutor’s remarks did not have the unavoidable effect of causing bias, hostility, or prejudice in the minds of the jurors.

2020More specifically, “in reviewing an allegation of prosecutorial misconduct, we will find that comments by a prosecutor constitute reversible error only where their unavoidable effect is to prejudice the jury, forming in their minds a fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant such that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and reach a fair verdict.” Id. (cleaned up).

2017A mistrial is an extreme remedy that is required only where the challenged event deprived the accused of a fair and impartial trial.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 131 A.3d 467 , 474–475 (Pa. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “[W]e will find that comments by a prosecutor constitute reversible error only where their unavoidable effect is to prejudice the jury, forming in their minds a fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant such that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and reach a fair verdict.” Commonwealth v. Cash, 137 A.3d 1262, 1273 (Pa. 2016) (internal altera

2024As our courts have repeatedly stated, "prosecutorial misconduct will not be found where comments were based on the evidence or proper inferences therefrom or were only oratorical flair." Commonwealth v. Judy, 978 A.2d 1015, 1020 (Pa. Super. 2009) (quoting Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 889 A2d. 501, 544 (Pa. 2005).

2019As our courts have repeatedly stated, "prosecutorial misconduct will not be found where comments were based on the evidence or proper inferences therefrom or were only oratorical flair." Commonwealth v. Judy, 978 A.2d 1015, 1020 (Pa. Super. 2009) ( quoting Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 889 A2d. 501, 544 (Pa. 2005).

2021See Jones, 912 A.2d at 278 ; Spotz, supra. Next, Wheeler contends that Attorney Lang was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecution’s: (1) closing argument, which included the prosecutor mentioning “notorious offenders” including Nassar, Cosby, and - 19 - J-S23006-21 Sandusky;8 (2) “attacks” on Attorney Lang, which distracted the jury;9 and (3) call for jurors to convict Wheeler to permit Victim to begin to “heal.” 10 Our “stringent” standard of review for a claim of prosecutorial misconduct stemming from improper argument to the jury is well-settled: “Comments by a prosecutor consti

2019“The appellate courts have recognized that not every unwise remark by an attorney amounts to misconduct or warrants the grant of a new trial.” Jaynes, 135 A.3d at 615 (citation omitted).

2018As our courts have repeatedly stated, “prosecutorial misconduct will not be found where comments were based on the evidence or proper inferences therefrom or were only oratorical flair.” Commonwealth v. Judy, 978 A.2d 1015, 1020 (Pa. Super. 2009) (quoting Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 889 A.2d 501, 544 (Pa. 2005)).

2016Our review of a trial court’s denial of a motion for a mistrial “is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion.” Commonwealth v. Fortenbaugh, 620 Pa. 483 , 69 A.3d 191, 193 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2016Our review of a trial court’s denial of a motion for a mistrial “is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion.” Commonwealth v. Fortenbaugh, 620 Pa. 483 , 69 A.3d 191, 193 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2000Commonwealth v. Hackett, 558 Pa. 78, 91 , 735 A.2d 688, 696 (1999).

2000Commonwealth v. Hackett, 558 Pa. 78, 91 , 735 A.2d 688, 696 (1999).