A state appeals court has overturned the conviction of an alleged pimp because the prosecutor made improper comments during the trial’s closing arguments.
Justin McKinley was found guilty in January 2015 of first-degree promoting prostitution and was sentenced four months later to 20 years in prison.
During the trial, the prosecutor showed the jury video of McKinley beating a prostitute in a hotel room. The prostitute was the state’s key witness against McKinley. The cellphone video was recorded by McKinley’s co-defendant, Lawrence Bruce, who was found guilty of second-degree promoting prostitution and sentenced to 10 years in prison.
The woman testified that she didn’t want to be a prostitute anymore and that she did not know why McKinley beat her. The prosecutor suggested in her questions that McKinley beat the prostitute for refusing to answer telephone calls from prospective clients.
Bruce and another prostitute, who identified herself as McKinley’s girlfriend, testified that McKinley beat the woman for stealing money from the other prostitute. McKinley did not testify in his own defense.
In her closing arguments, the prosecutor told the jurors that McKinley treated the prostitute as though she were property when, in fact, “she’s somebody’s daughter, she’s somebody’s friend, she’s a mother, she’s a woman, she is a person.”
McKinley’s lawyer objected to the prosecutor’s comment but the trial judge overruled the objection.
The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that the prosecutor’s comment was not a legitimate area of inquiry and thus constituted an improper plea that could have inflamed the jury. The court said whether the prostitute was a daughter, friend, mother or woman was not relevant to whether McKinley was guilty of promoting prostitution in the first degree. Instead, the ruling found it was an effort to evoke sympathy by suggesting that jury members put themselves in the prostitute’s shoes.
The appeals court also said the trial judge could have negated the effects of the prosecutor’s comments by telling the jury to disregard them but instead overruled the objection.
