Appellant's attorney did not object to the prosecutor's closing argument, but now contends, for the first time on appeal, that the prosecutor's remarks constituted misconduct. However, defense counsel's failure to object at trial or to preserve the issue in a post-trial motion, is deemed to be a waiver of the objection. Furthermore, it was proper for the prosecutor to comment on appellant's character defense and credibility, both material issues in the trial. In appellant's motion for a new trial, he argued that the court impermissibly required the jury to return a verdict after the jury indicated that it was deadlocked. Appellant argues that, according to Minn. Stat.
Trial courts have considerable latitude in the selection of the language of the jury charge.
The question in this case is whether the trial court's instructions, taken as a whole, coerced the jury to reach a unanimous verdict. The record supports the conclusion that the trial court's instructions did not coerce the jury. See id . We find that it was not improper for the court to remind the jury of its function. It is not the jury.