Opinion ID: 1589788
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Victim-impact information during voir dire and opening statement

Text: ¶ 103. First, according to Goff, the State injected character evidence concerning the victim during voir dire as well as during its opening statement. ¶ 104. During voir dire, the prosecutor asked the following of the prospective jurors: BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY (voir dire): She worked as a cocktail waitress at a bar in Alabama where she worked to help support her family. And you're going to hear that from her husband. And she left 24 days before her death with the defendant. Now, the question I have for ya'll is, will you hold that against the State of Mississippi that she worked in a bar? Some people just don't like that. Some people think you ought not work in a bar. Can everybody tell me her profession or her career that she was doing at the time will not affect your verdict? Can everybody tell me that? That you can follow the law? Because the law doesn't say you have the right to life unless you're a cocktail waitress, or you have the right to life unless you left your kids 24 days before with another man. It doesn't say that. It doesn't say that. And I need to know. And it's all right. Again, as the Judge told you, this is America, we can believe what we want. And that's the great thing about our country. But we need to know now. Because if that's going to bother you, we have to know now. So, can everybody tell me they can follow the law as given to you by the Court? ¶ 105. Later, during the prosecution's opening statement, the district attorney made the following statement: BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY (opening statement): ... [O]n August the 2nd, Brandy Stewart Yates was 29 years old. She had a husband named James. She had a son eight years old, James IV, and she had a daughter named Sissy. Her mother Carolyn, her father Jack, her sister Crystal, and her brother Jeff loved her dearly and cared for her greatly. On August the 2nd, they could not understand the decision Brandy had made, a decision to leave her family and go to with that man right there, the defendant that you see in this courtroom. Now, Brandy, you will hear, was a cocktail waitress at a bar in Alabama. She worked there to help support the family. James worked construction. She met Mr. Goff at that bar, and for reasons we will probably never know, she made a decision to go with him. But at that time, all the concern, all the love, no one, no one ever dreamed that 24 days later she would lay dead in Room 121 of the Rocky Creek Inn here in Lucedale, Mississippi. ¶ 106. We find that the questions asked by the prosecutor during voir dire were permissible, as [o]ur law allows an attorney for either side to probe the prejudices of the prospective jurors to the end that all will understand the jurors' thoughts on matters directly related to the issues to be tried. West v. State, 553 So.2d 8, 22 (Miss.1989). The prosecution wanted to know whether any prospective juror would be prejudiced against Brandy or the State because she was a cocktail waitress and/or because she had left her husband for another man. ¶ 107. With regard to the prosecution's opening statement, this Court has held that the purpose of an opening statement is to inform the jury what a party to the litigation expects the proof to show. Slaughter v. State, 815 So.2d 1122, 1131 (Miss.2002) (quoting Crenshaw v. State, 513 So.2d 898, 900 (Miss.1987)). We find that the prosecutor's statement did just this  inform the jury what it expected the evidence to show. ¶ 108. Furthermore, statements made by counsel during voir dire or during opening argument do not constitute evidence. See Henton v. State, 752 So.2d 406, 409 (Miss.1999) (closing arguments are not evidence); Crenshaw v. State, 513 So.2d 898, 900 (opening statements are not evidence). This issue is without merit.