Opinion ID: 1936097
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: whether the substance and nature of the prosecutor's comments and arguments violated jackson's rights, misinformed and misdirected jurors on the law and the facts, and deprived him of a fair trial

Text: Jackson contends that various comments made by the prosecution during opening and closing arguments, as well as while examining witnesses, were improper and mandate the reversal of his sentence and conviction. Jackson made no contemporaneous objections to the comments or lines of questioning now complained of. Accordingly, his arguments are procedurally barred. Chase v. State, 645 So.2d 829, 854 (Miss. 1994); Hansen v. State, 592 So.2d 114, 139-140 (Miss. 1991). Moreover, [t]he defendant who fails to make a contemporaneous objection must rely on plain error to raise the assignment on appeal. Foster v. State, 639 So.2d 1263, 1289 (Miss. 1994). Even when, as in the case sub judice, no contemporaneous objections have been raised, reversal may be necessary when the prosecution has improperly alluded to the defendant's failure to testify. Foster, 639 So.2d at 1290; Griffin v. State, 557 So.2d 542, 552 (Miss. 1990); Livingston v. State, 525 So.2d 1300, 1306-07 (Miss. 1988). Jackson claims that the prosecution made such statements and pursued questioning which improperly drew the jury's attention to his choice not to take the witness stand. We, however, find no such allusions in the portions of the trial transcript cited by the appellant.