Opinion ID: 1685524
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the court should have granted a mistrial because of improper remarks by the prosecutor.

Text: During the state's closing argument the state referred to one of the witnesses, James Osborn, as being frightened: I feel that Sand knew he made a mistake, talking to Osborne because here is a clean-cut kind. We looked at Mr. Green; Mr. Green is a rough, he is mean-looking, but he is worried about that kid, and he threatened him, Keep out mouth shut, or I'm going to hurt your wife and baby. Now he would have you believe, Sand would have you believe that is not what happened. The argument of counsel is, well, he didn't do anything about it. The kid is petrified. When I shook his hand for the first time today, I had to grab it to get it down where I could get my hands on it. At this point appellant objected and the trial court sustained the objection and admonished the jury to disregard the statement. Appellant moved for mistrial, and the court overruled, the motion again admonishing the jury to disregard anything outside the record. Appellant argues that the prosecutor's remark is prejudicial and cannot be cured by the instruction of the court. He cites Eaton v. State, 200 Miss. 729, 28 So.2d 230 (1946). There, when the prosecutor in his final argument stated that the defendant had come into court and brought some of his kin-folk and a bunch of bootleggers to testify for him, a fact unsupported by the evidence, the court admonished the jury, but failed to call to the attention of the jury the complete absence of evidence supporting this statement. In the case at bar, the trial judge did bring to the attention of the jurors that the prosecutor's statement was unsupported by the evidence. Where an objection is sustained and the jury admonished to disregard the objected evidence, the jurors are presumed to follow the directions of the court. Johnson v. State, 341 So.2d 660 (Miss. 1977). The statement complained of herein, that a witness was frightened, was hardly significant. The prosecutor was in error when he referred to the witness' shaking before he testified, because the statement was not supported by evidence; the witness did testify, however, that he was frightened. Under the circumstances, the remedial actions of the trial court were sufficient to remove any prejudicial effect on the jury. Whitlock v. State, 419 So.2d 200 (Miss. 1982). Although this defendant did not receive a perfect trial, it was a fair trial, and we affirm. AFFIRMED. PATTERSON, C.J., WALKER and ROY NOBLE LEE, P.JJ., and HAWKINS, DAN M. LEE, PRATHER, ROBERTSON and SULLIVAN, JJ., concur.