State v. O'Brien-Veader

Summary

The concurrence agrees that the judgment of conviction should be affirmed but disagrees with the majority's conclusion that the prosecutor's description of the defendant as "a mean and nasty person who was looking to kill somebody" was improper. It reasons that, in context, the remark was an inartful attempt to impeach the defense expert's conclusion that the defendant had no history of violence by highlighting an undisclosed violent incident. The concurrence also cautions against treating minor prosecutorial missteps as equivalent to serious constitutional misconduct.