State v. Solis

“[A] trial court’s overruling of an objection to improper prosecutorial argument is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Mayo, 303 Or. App. 525, 530, 465 P3d 267 (2020).

Petitioner appealed his convictions for eight counts of sexual abuse in the first degree and one count of rape in the third degree. At trial, Petitioner asserted that his admissions to investigators were false, and merely in response to leading questions. The State argued during its closing that if Petitioner wanted to prove the falsity of his statements to the jury, “he would have had to give [the jury] some evidence on it and there is nothing.” Petitioner’s counsel objected multiple times asserting that such a statement was “burden-shifting.” The trial court overruled each objection and denied request for curative instruction. On appeal, Petitioner assigned error to the trial court’s overruling of the defense’s objections to the State’s closing argument asserting that it improperly shifted the burden of proof to Petitioner, resulting in an unfair trial. Upon review, the Court agreed with Petitioner. “[A] trial court’s overruling of an objection to improper prosecutorial argument is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Mayo, 303 Or. App. 525, 530, 465 P3d 267 (2020). Applying this rule, the Court reasoned that the trial court’s overruling of Petitioner’s objection to the State’s argument was improper because the State’s closing argument erroneously led the jury to believe that it was Petitioner’s burden to put on evidence that his confessions were false when no such burden existed. The Court held that by overruling Petitioner’s objections, and failing to take corrective action, the trial court abused its discretion, resulting in an unfair trial. Reversed and remanded.