Opinion ID: 1913318
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 35

Heading: did the prosecutor misstate the law, causing reversible error?

Text: ¶ 157. Holland claims the prosecutor misstated the law. To reverse on a misstatement of law, there must first be a misstatement of the law, and second, the misstatement must make the trial fundamentally unfair. United States v. Goodapple, 958 F.2d 1402, 1409 (7th Cir.1992). Any statements may also be mitigated if the evidence is sufficient to support the jury's finding and the trial court instructs the jury that counsel's arguments are not evidence. United States v. Fierro, 38 F.3d 761, 771 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1051, 115 S.Ct. 1431, 131 L.Ed.2d 312 (1995). ¶ 158. Holland claims five assertions of misstatements. First, the prosecutor stated that evidence showing Holland to be a victim of child abuse doesn't excuse this, it doesn't go to mitigate this [this murder]. The prosecutor also stated that Holland's family wanting him to live and his mother's testimony on Holland's troubled childhood was not mitigation, folks. Holland failed to object to either comment on the grounds of misstatement of law, and this assignment of error is therefore barred under Harrison v. State, 635 So.2d 894, 903 (Miss. 1994); Chase, supra ; Foster, supra ; Cole, supra . ¶ 159. Second, Holland objects to the prosecutor stating, When you discuss all those items [of mitigation] you still have an obligation to go back and follow the law. Third, Holland objects to the prosecutor stating, [I]t is my strong contention that you can't do it under the sentencing instruction S-1, and you said that you would follow the law. Fourth, Holland objects to the prosecutor acknowledging that it would not be fair to get someone to set aside their moral feelings. Holland did not object to any of these statements, and these assertions are, thus, procedurally barred from review. Box v. State, 610 So.2d 1148, 1154 (Miss. 1992).