Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): intermediate appellate court relied on the fact that the incident in Olive Branch, Mississippi, as well as that the incident at the Watkins residence/ occurred on July 20, 2010, rather than July . 21, 2010. Id. However, as indicated above, the victim’s testimony was unclear as to whether the incident at the Watkins residence occurred on July 20 or 21, 2010. Moreover, the testimony of the MPD officers does not exclude July 21, 2010, as the date of the Watki l Appeals do not use’ language as strong as “cure” or “effective substitute” and rather merely consider a prosecutor’s’ closing argument in determining whether the failure to- elect was harmless beyond a reasonable' doubt. See, e.g., State v. Osborne, No. M2005-00893-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 2682773, at *5 (Tenn.Crim.App.-Sept. 7, 2006) (<HOLDING>); State v. Ramey, No. E2003-01840-CCA-R3-CD, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that any error was harmless when prosecutor stated in closing argument that the state was electing a specific incident the victim had testified to with particularity (B) holding that it was harmless error when the prosecutor focused on a single incident in closing argument (C) holding exclusion was harmless error (D) holding that plainerror exception did not apply where prosecutor asked jury to assume the role of the victim in closing argument (E) holding it was improper for prosecutor to inject personal opinion in statements to the jury in closing argument
Output (English): holding that any error was harmless when prosecutor stated in closing argument that the state was electing a specific incident the victim had testified to with particularity