Opinion ID: 2274490
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The comments and questions at issue.

Text: Mayo's main argument is based upon statements made by the Commonwealth during closing argument about a good jury. More specifically, at one point during its closing argument, the Commonwealth began a comment by saying, Is there a reason why a good jury would not return a finding ... at which point Mayo's counsel interrupted with an objection to the Commonwealth's statement as being not proper. The trial court remarked that it did not understand the reason for the objection and invited counsel to the bench. At that bench conference, Mayo's counsel stated that the Commonwealth's intimation to the jury that a good jury would find Mayo guilty was improper. The Commonwealth responded that it was not sure what the problem was but that it would fix it. The trial court did not make a formal ruling on the objection. And Mayo requested no formal ruling. Instead, the trial court merely dispatched the Commonwealth forward to fix it. Immediately, the Commonwealth addressed the jury and feigned fault for assuming that this jury was going to be a good jury. Mayo's counsel objected. Instead of returning to the bench for clarification, the Commonwealth gestured toward Mayo's counsel and asked herin full view and hearing of the juryIs it your belief they are not a good jury? The trial court then implored counsel: Let's don't go into all that. Just, just move on to something else. Mayo's counsel, however, approached the bench and asked for an admonition that a good jury was a jury that considered all the facts and rendered the verdict it believed was appropriate. The Commonwealth stated it had no objection to such an admonition, after which the trial court admonished the jury that it would be a good jury whichever verdict it returned. Mayo requested no further relief. Mayo's second basis for relief based upon prosecutorial misconduct stems from the Commonwealth's cross-examination of Mayo. Although his brief is thin on the subject, Mayo argues that the Commonwealth erred during its cross-examination of Mayo by engag[ing] in a series of question[s] implying that defense counsel had acted improperly in preparing Mayo to testify. Mayo has not cited to any specific portions of the record that contain such statements by the Commonwealth. Instead, Mayo points to his motion for a mistrial in which one of the stated grounds was the Commonwealth's alleged references to defense counsel improperly preparing Mayo to testify. Even though the Commonwealth pointed out Mayo's briefs noncompliance with CR 76.12, Mayo did not file a reply brief in an attempt to correct his oversight. We would be justified in disregarding this claim of error because counsel must sift through a record to show the reviewing court the basis for a claim for relief. But we did view Mayo's cross-examination in the course of resolving other issues in this appeal and, through that process, observed the Commonwealth ask Mayo whether he had, in preparation for testifying, been given by his attorney a copy of the transcript of an interview Mayo had with a detective. Because Mayo has failed to direct us to anything more specific in the record underlying this claim for relief, we shall assume that that question by the Commonwealth is at issue in this appeal. [19] Again, we caution counsel in the future to comply with all briefing requirements set forth in CR 76.12.