P. v. Sponseller
Aaron Glenn Sponseller appeals from a petty theft conviction that resulted in a sentence of three years in state prison.[1] The appeal presents two challenges to the conduct of his trial: First, he asserts that the trial judge misinstructed the jury on the burden of proof. The issue arose in the context of a note from the juror asking for help when they seemed deadlocked. Second, he says that the prosecutor was guilty of misconduct in alluding to a comment made by a prospective juror, a former teacher, on voir dire, to the effect that it was her experience that when a person denies a theft allegation, the person ultimately turns out to have been the culprit.
However, even under the federal beyond-a-reasonable-doubt test articulated in Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24, the error was harmless. There was a testifying eyewitness. The trial judge de facto corrected the misconduct when he subsequently instructed the jury to decide the case only on the evidence presented and that closing remarks were not evidence. Sponseller acted like a man who was guilty when he was first arrested, asserting essentially that because he was not found with the loot on him that he could not be lawfully arrested for taking it, which was tantamount to an admission.
Comments on P. v. Sponseller