Can prosecutors describe injury photos without expert testimony during closing? State v. Thomas Explained

In State v. Thomas, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether prosecutors may describe photographic evidence of injuries and draw inferences about their cause during closing argument without calling expert witnesses. The decision provides important guidance on the boundaries of proper prosecutorial argument.

Background and Facts

Thomas was charged with aggravated assault for strangling a pregnant woman with what she described as a ligature resembling “something like a shoelace.” The attack left visible marks on the victim’s neck that were photographed both on the day of the incident and five days later by police. During closing argument, the prosecutor examined these photographs and described the marks as showing “pressure from the ligature,” arguing they were inconsistent with self-inflicted abrasions. Defense counsel had suggested the marks could have been created by the victim rubbing a rope on her neck.

Key Legal Issues

Thomas raised two claims on appeal: first, that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the prosecutor’s comments as improper expert testimony, and second, that the trial court committed plain error in allowing the prosecutor’s statements to go unchecked. Both claims hinged on whether the prosecutor’s descriptions of the injury photographs constituted prosecutorial misconduct.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals rejected both claims, holding that the prosecutor’s comments were permissible inferences from the evidence. The court emphasized that prosecutors have “considerable latitude” in closing argument to discuss evidence and draw reasonable deductions. Crucially, the court found that determining what caused visible bruises and marks does not require expert testimony because such observations are “within the common experience of laypersons.” The court noted that average people have sufficient life experience with bruising to understand that bruise shapes often mirror the objects that caused them.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies the line between proper argument and improper expert testimony during closing. Prosecutors may describe photographic evidence and draw reasonable inferences about causation when the subject matter falls within common knowledge. However, they cannot introduce new facts or assert personal knowledge beyond the evidence. For defense attorneys, frivolous objections to proper prosecutorial argument will not only fail but could support ineffective assistance claims. The decision reinforces that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for declining to make futile objections.