Case ID: ne2d_582/html/0355-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "KRAHULIK, Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William BENIRSCHKE, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
    No. 45S00-8902-CR-108.
    Supreme Court of Indiana.
    Dec. 5, 1991.
    Maree Gonzalez, Jr., Appellánt Div., Crown Point, for appellant.
    Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Arthur Thaddeus Perry, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
   ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

KRAHULIK, Justice.

Defendant-Appellant Benirschke argues in his petition for rehearing that our opinion in his case, (1991) 577 N.E.2d 576, fails to address three alleged instances of prose-cutorial misconduct which occurred during final argument. Benirschke admits that this issue was first raised in his reply brief and, ordinarily, would be deemed to be waived. Ward v. State (1991), Ind., 567 N.E.2d 85. Nevertheless, he asks that we consider this additional issue. We also note that there was no contemporaneous objection lodged against the alleged misconduct and, thus, any error is waived. Burris v. State (1984), Ind., 465 N.E.2d 171. However, in the interest of judicial economy, we have reviewed the transcript of final argument and hold that the prosecutor’s statements did not constitute reversible error. They were appropriate comments relating to the evidence adduced at trial. Therefore, Benirschke’s petition for rehearing is denied.

SHEPARD, C.J., and DeBRULER, GIYAN and DICKSON, JJ„ concur.