Opinion ID: 1704603
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Did the prosecutor make remarks which inflamed the passion of the jurors?

Text: ¶ 47. During the State's closing argument, the prosecutor stated [a]nd whatever count where you think that the State has proven him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on his oath, you're required to return a verdict of guilty. If you violate your oath, you will have defrauded the State of Mississippi. Logan objected, and the trial court sustained that objection. The prosecutor then said I would never, under any circumstances, return in this courtroom a verdict that I did not believe in. Logan again objected, and the trial court sustained the objection. ¶ 48. Attorneys are given wide latitude during closing arguments. Rushing v. State, 711 So.2d 450, 455 (Miss. 1998). The trial judge is in the best position for determining the prejudicial effect of an objectionable comment and is, therefore, vested with discretion to determine whether the comment is so prejudicial that a mistrial should be declared. Alexander v. State, 602 So.2d 1180, 1182 (Miss.1992). [T]he test to determine if an improper argument by a prosecutor requires reversal is whether the natural and probable effect of the prosecuting attorney's improper argument created unjust prejudice against the accused resulting in a decision influenced by prejudice. Dunaway v. State, 551 So.2d 162, 163 (Miss.1989). ¶ 49. In the remarks at issue, the prosecutor correctly told the jury that it was required to return a guilty verdict if the State proved Logan guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Although the other comments about which Logan complains were improper, we cannot say that he was unjustly prejudiced by them, particular when they are viewed in the context of a trial which lasted eight days. ¶ 50. For the reasons stated herein, we hold that the prosecutor did not make improper comments at trial which established grounds for a mistrial.