Opinion ID: 1846260
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: whether kolberg, through alleged prosecutorial misconduct, was denied his right to a fair trial.

Text: ¶ 146. Kolberg tells us the State improperly injected emotionalism into the trial when, during opening statements, the prosecutor said: Now, they have him dressed up in a sweater so he looks nice and fuzzy and warm. Don't let that fool you. This man beat to death an innocent baby girl. And I'm sorry if I get emotional. I have a baby myself, and it's hard to imagine anybody beating a baby to death.... As pointed out by the State, defense counsel did not make a contemporaneous objection at the time the statement was made, but he did raise it at the close of opening statements in his motion for a mistrial. Kolberg also complains of the following remarks of the prosecutor made during closing arguments: When I look at him I feel sick to my stomach. I think how could any human being MR. SMITH: Your Honor, I must object to that. I'm sorry to interrupt but that's not proper. THE COURT: Overruled. MS. WOOTEN: (Continuing). It makes me sick to think that another person could take a baby, and look at her, look at those big blue eyes of hers, that what she had to have gone through as he was beating her in those 49 days. Lastly, Kolberg tells us the State engaged in a atavistic repartee by arguing that its local doctors were better than doctors from out of state: ... and we're going to have doctors, local doctors that treated this baby girl. These are people that work here in Mississippi, that practice here in Mississippi, that treated this baby in Mississippi, and what they're going to tell you is that when they saw this child in the condition that she was in, she couldn't breathe on her own ... ¶ 147. Kolberg cites to Smith v. State, 499 So.2d 750, 756-57 (Miss.1986) for our statement that fundamental fairness requires that any defendant should not be subjected to testimony and tactics which are highly inflammatory and prejudicial as shown by the record before us. (citing Tudor v. State, 299 So.2d 682, 685 (Miss. 1974)). Yet, what was shown by the record before us was that the prosecution asked the defendant why he killed a person, but [a]t the time the question was asked, there was no evidence in the record concerning the killing or death of [the victim], nor was there any evidence in the record that defendant had ever been convicted of a previous crime. Id. at 755. However, Kolberg correctly points out that we said in Bridgeforth v. State, 498 So.2d 796, 801 (Miss.1986) that a prosecutor should not indulge in personal abuse or vilification of the defendant. ¶ 148. Yet, as pointed out by the State, in Wideman v. State, 339 So.2d 1378 (Miss. 1976), we were confronted with statements by a prosecutor almost identical to those made here: I don't think, that as long as I have prosecuted, I have seen a situation that has made me more sick to my stomach than what I have seen here today. Now I am going to tell you why. I've got four little daughters, two of which are the same age as this little lady over here, and I think about them, and I love them, and I want to protect them. Id. at 1381-82. We held these comments were improper and should not have been made. Id. at 1382. We said: However, while we again admonish prosecuting attorneys of the dangers of reversal in going outside the record in their arguments, we do not think that the remarks in this case, under all the facts and circumstances, constitute reversible error. Id. We believe such is the case here, and consequently, this assignment of error is without merit. ¶ 149. As to Kolberg's atavism argument, we believe it is also without merit. Kolberg suggests that this somehow violates the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yet, we have found no authority that the state action contemplated by that amendment also encompasses a prosecutor's comments or arguments during trial. Kolberg provides us with no citation for such a proposition. Accordingly, this assignment of error is without merit.
¶ 150. Kolberg next claims that the State made speaking objections where the State would try to impart prejudicial, and often false, information in their objections. He refers us to a point in the trial where the prosecutor believed she saw counsel for Kolberg shaking his head at Kolberg. The prosecutor objected, saying: Your Honor, I object. I'm watching Mr. Smith and he's shaking his head. Kolberg vehemently denies this and tells us that this allegation was flagrantly false. Yet, we agree with the State that the prosecutor was merely stating the ground for her objection. This assignment of error is without merit.