Can prosecutors accuse defendants of perjury during closing arguments? State v. Almaguer Explained

In State v. Almaguer, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a prosecutor’s accusation of perjury during closing argument constitutes reversible error, providing guidance on the boundaries of permissible prosecutorial argument.

Background and Facts

Almaguer was convicted of rape after the victim testified that he sexually assaulted her while she pretended to sleep on a couch with her children. At trial, Almaguer testified that the sexual contact was consensual, claiming the victim offered sexual favors in exchange for drugs. During closing argument, the prosecutor stated that Almaguer “lied to you under oath” and “perjured himself,” arguing his testimony was “concocted” and “absurd.” The trial court immediately intervened, instructing the jury to “completely disregard” the perjury statement and reminding them that credibility determinations were their responsibility alone.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented the question of whether the prosecutor’s perjury accusation constituted prosecutorial misconduct requiring reversal. Because Almaguer failed to object at trial, the court reviewed the issue under the plain error standard, which requires showing that an obvious error occurred that likely affected the outcome.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, emphasizing that plain error review focuses on whether the trial court made an obvious error in handling the misconduct, not whether the prosecutor’s statements were improper. The court noted that while calling a defendant a liar based on fair inferences from evidence is permissible, accusations of perjury go further. However, the trial court’s immediate and explicit curative instruction directing the jury to disregard the perjury statement was sufficient to cure any prejudice.

Practice Implications

This decision highlights the importance of preservation of error in prosecutorial misconduct claims. Had defense counsel objected, the issue would have been reviewed for abuse of discretion rather than under the more demanding plain error standard. The ruling also demonstrates that trial courts have discretion in crafting remedies for prosecutorial overreach, and immediate curative instructions can effectively address improper statements without requiring a mistrial.