 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Wilcox10/19/1999
, the prosecutor stated the following:
Okay. So we didn't send some things off for chemical analysis. What we try to do with your tax money is preserve those services for cases where it's needed. Look at the anatomy of this case . . . . They get a burglary report that we're going to talk about here in a few minutes from Mr. Wilcox. Within a few hours- we're not talking days and we're not talking Monday through Friday. We're talking Sunday, you know. I mean even Detective Wilson ought to have a little time on Sunday. He's on call but he doesn't sit at his desk on Sunday night at eight o'clock to just wait for Mr. Wilcox to come in and report this burglary. You've got a couple of deputies out there on a stringshoe (sic) budget servicing the entire county-
The state argues that the prosecutor's statement was a proper summary of the evidence. Specifically, it points to testimony from trial that (1) the investigating officer was not trained to lift fingerprints; (2) no detective was on duty at the time of the burglary; (3) the entire county has only three detectives, one is on call on the weekends, and none actually work on the weekends; and (4) the McMinn County Medical Examiner is not a pathologist and does not conduct post-mortem examinations. We question whether the previous testimony allows for a reasonable argument that the county was on a shoestring budget. Nevertheless, we believe that the defendant has failed to demonstrate that the statement affected the verdict. The comment was isolated and innocuous, the evidence against the defendant is great, and no evidence exists regarding the prosecutor's improper intent. See Judge v. State, 539 S.W.2d 340, 344 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1976).
In consideration of the foregoing and the record as a whole, we affirm the judgment of conviction.
Joseph M. Tipton, Judge
CONCUR:
John Everett Williams, Judge
Alan E. Glenn, Judge
|