 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Tanner v. State5/4/2000
e killed between 2:00 and 8:00 p.m. A narrower determination can not be made, and Tanner suffered no harm by not being able to cross-examine Winstead about his contradiction in testimony in front of the jury. The jury heard the testimony of Martin as to why he placed the time of death at 5:00 p.m. and also heard the testimony of Scheuerman, who said she saw Wood between 4:20 and 4:35 p.m. Consequently, the court did not abuse its discretion, and this issue is without merit.
VIII.
WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT GRANTING A MISTRIAL DUE TO PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
. "In appropriate circumstances, prosecutorial misconduct has been the basis for reversal of a defendant's conviction and sentence." Chase v. State, 645 So.2d 829, 853 (Miss.1994).
However, in discussing the broad latitude afforded attorneys in making their closing arguments, this Court has stated:
Counsel was not required to be logical in argument; he is not required to draw sound conclusions, or to have a perfect argument measured by logical and rhetorical rules; his function is to draw conclusions and inferences from evidence on behalf of his client in whatever he deems proper, so long as he does not become abusive and go outside the confines of the record. Brown v. State, 690 So.2d 276, 296 (Miss. 1996)(quoting Johnson v. State, 416 So.2d 383, 391 (Miss.1982)).
Indeed, we have held that "the prosecutor may comment on facts in evidence and may draw proper deductions there from." Id.
. In the present case, Tanner asserts that District Attorney Ed Peters repeatedly made improper speaking objections and derogatory comments in the presence of the jury which prejudiced Tanner in the eyes of the jury.
Specifically, Tanner refers to the following instances:
[Mr. Peters]Your honor, it doesn't matter what the answer is. He just wants to make a statement. He doesn't care what this witness says.
[Mr. Peters] Every time you sustain an objection, then he makes the statement that he wants the jury to believe with no proof. And we ask that he be instructed to quit doing that. If he has got proof let me put it on.
[Mr. Peters]...Until then we ask that he quit asking speculative questions for no purpose other than to throw smoke screen into this case.
[Mr. Peters]If he has got evidence that he wants to put on, we ask that he put it on and not try to avoid those people being cross examined by trying to ram in hearsay, and we object.
[Mr. Peters] Your honor, absolutely, we object to it. We ask that he get sanctioned...that is absolutely uncalled for.
[Mr. Peters]If it please the Court, if Mr. Malouf has any proof whatsoever of a deal, we ask that he come forward with it at this time; otherwise, that he refrain from asking those questions.
[Mr. Peters]Can we excuse the jury. This is the second time we have had discovery problems.
. Where a prosecutor has made an improper argument, the question on appeal is "whether the natural and probable effect of the improper argument of the prosecuting attorney is to create an unjust prejudice against the accused as to result in a decision influenced by the prejudice so created." Wells v. State, 698 So.2d 497, 507 (Miss. 1997). This Court has looked at the instances of alleged prosecutorial misconduct and does not find them to be serious enough to warrant reversal. In the most serious instances, the trial judge either excluded the jury, asked Tanner's counsel to rephrase the question, or sustained Tanner's objections.
. Additionally, Tanner asserts that he was prejudiced by the State's repeate
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|