Title: Howell v. State
Citation: 411 So. 2d 772
Docket Number: 53056
State: Mississippi
Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court
Date: March 24, 1982

411 So. 2d 772 (1982) Ronald C. HOWELL v. STATE of Mississippi. No. 53056. Supreme Court of Mississippi. March 24, 1982. Johnston &amp; Steinberger, Albert S. Johnston, III, Pascagoula, for appellant. Bill Allain, Atty. Gen. by Amy Whitten, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. Before SUGG, P.J., and BROOM and BOWLING, JJ. *773 BOWLING, Justice, for the Court: Appellant was indicted, tried and convicted in the Circuit Court of Stone County of the crime of armed robbery. The lower court sentenced him to eight years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. There are several assignments of error, but we need only to consider one, as it requires the reversal of this case for a new trial. The assignment concerns the closing argument to the jury by the district attorney. What occurred may best be described by quoting what is shown by the record: We can readily see that when the district attorney interjected the matter of appeal there was an objection and the lower court sustained the objection, but it did not instruct the jury to disregard the district attorney's statement; although the court was requested so to do. A mistrial was requested and denied. The district attorney again got on the subject of the Supreme Court checking the case after it had been decided by the jury. Then for the third time, a similar statement was repeated to the jury, advising them that if they did not act "properly" then the Supreme Court would correct their actions. Again, appellant's attorney requested a mistrial and it was denied. After the fourth time the district attorney told the jury "you are not going to be the final judge," and after the idea had been pounded into their heads, the trial judge instructed the jury not to take into consideration a possible appeal of its verdict. In our opinion this came too late. The damage had been done over and over again by the district attorney. The Alabama Supreme Court in Beard v. State, 19 Ala.App. 102, 95 So. 333 (1923), set out the principle prohibiting the prosecution from making the above described error by stating: The Georgia Supreme Court in Hammond v. State, 156 Ga. 880, 120 S.E. 539 (1923), stated as follows: The Indiana Supreme Court in Kelley v. State, 210 Ind. 380, 3 N.E.2d 65 (1936) stated: In regard to arguments in criminal cases, this Court in Clemons v. State, 320 So. 2d 368 (Miss. 1975), set out the following principles: In Tudor v. State, 299 So. 2d 682 (Miss. 1974), in reversing and remanding the cause, we stated as follows: One of the statements made by the District Attorney in his closing argument was "you are not the final judges of this and if he appeals, he has the right to be out on bond." This is an inaccurate statement of the law and could have been very misleading to the jury. A person convicted of certain felonies, including robbery, is not entitled to bail since the applicable statute was passed in 1880, unless the court in its discretion decided that for some reason justice would be best served by bail being granted. The person convicted of robbery has no automatic right to bail. Section 99-35-115, Mississippi Code 1972 Annotated. We, therefore, are required to hold that the district attorney, although he was prosecuting vigorously, a duty which is to be commended, went beyond the bounds of giving the appellant a completely fair and impartial trial by injecting into the closing argument the instructions to the jury, both directly and indirectly by implication, that if they should make a mistake, it would be corrected. The jury was not informed that the jurors only were the ones who determined the facts, not the appellate court. Just the opposite was left in the minds of the jurors. The quoted parts of the argument could only leave in the jurors' minds that if they decided a close, contradicted fact and found the defendant guilty thereby, the appellate court could change that finding. The actions of the trial court were not sufficient to cure the error. REVERSED AND REMANDED. PATTERSON, C.J., SMITH and SUGG, P. JJ., and WALKER, BROOM, ROY NOBLE LEE, HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, JJ., concur.