Black v. State3/12/2001
by defense counsel were cured when the trial court admonished the jury to disregard the comments and recall the evidence. See White v. State, 1995 OK CR 15, 22, 900 P.2d 982, 992. The remaining remarks were not objected to and will be reviewed for plain error. Romano, 1995 OK CR 74, at 54, 909 P.2d at 115. This Court has consistently held that it will not grant relief unless the cumulative effect of all of the prosecutor's conduct was such as to deny the defendant a fair trial. Spears v. State, 1995 OK CR 36, 60, 900 P.2d 431, 445, cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1031, 116 S.Ct. 678, 133 L.Ed.2d 527 (1995). Furthermore, each side is permitted to present the evidence and the inferences thereof from its own point of view. Washington, 1999 OK CR 22, at 42, 989 P.2d at 974.
In the instant case a review of the record does not reveal conduct that so prejudiced Appellant as to deny him the right to a fair trial. The trial court sustained each of defense counsel's objections to improper comments by the prosecutor. The majority of the remaining comments were within the latitude allowed during closing arguments. Id. The prosecutor's comment invoking the name of Charles Manson and several personal digressions by Mr. Burns invoking victim sympathy were error. However, viewing the trial as a whole and the substantial evidence presented to prove statutory aggravators, these few comments did not rise to the level of reversible error. Although some of the prosecutors' comments were borderline, none of them, singularly or cumulatively, rose to the level of reversible error. Accordingly, this proposition is denied.
In his final proposition of error, Appellant contends that, even if no individual error merits reversal, the cumulative effect of the errors in his case necessitates either reversal of his conviction or a modification of his sentence. This Court has said that in the absence of individual error, there can be no accumulation of error. Lewis v. State, 1998 OK CR 24, 63, 970 P.2d 1158, 1176, cert. denied, 528 U.S. 892, 120 S.Ct. 218, 145 L.Ed.2d 183 (1999). "However, when there have been numerous irregularities during the course of the trial that tend to prejudice the rights of the defendant, reversal will be required if the cumulative effect of all the errors was to deny the defendant a fair trial." Id. We have thoroughly reviewed Appellant's claims and the record in this case and they reveal no error which, singly or in combination, would justify either modification or reversal. Any irregularities or errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Finding no error that warrants relief, the Judgment and Sentence of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF STEPHENS COUNTY THE HONORABLE GEORGE W. LINDLEY, DISTRICT JUDGE
Johnny Dale Black, Appellant, was tried by jury and convicted of one count of Murder in the first degree (21 O.S.Supp.1997, § 701.7(A)) and one count of Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon, After Former Conviction of a Felony (21 O.S.Supp.1992, § 652), in the District Court of Stephens County, Case No. CF-99-01, the Honorable George W. Lindley, District Judge, presiding. The jury recommended death for the murder after finding four aggravating circumstances and fifteen (15) years imprisonment for assault and battery with a deadly weapon. The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly. From this Judgment and Sentence, he appeals. AFFIRMED.
OPINION BY: STRUBHAR, J.
LUMPKIN, P.J.: CONCUR
JOHNSON, V.P.J.: CONCUR
CHAPEL, J.: CONCUR
IN RESULT LILE, J.: CONCUR
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Oklahoma DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|