Opinion ID: 2086402
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prosecutor's Guilt Phase Closing Argument

Text: Next, Appellant argues that the prosecutor made a number of improper comments during his closing argument in the guilt phase of the trial. None of these claims has arguable merit. First, Appellant contends that the prosecutor improperly insinuated that Freeman had been convicted rather than acquitted by arguing to the jury as follows: You didn't hear anything about Danny Freeman's case other than from the defendant and the defendant's wife. [4] Take that testimony. Take it as you take the rest of the things that came out of both of their mouths.... Take that testimony from the defendant and put it right next to everything else he told you. See if it has the ring of truth to it. You don't know what happened to Danny Freeman, and I can't tell you. The law won't let me. If you base your verdict in this case, one way or the other, on what you think happened to Danny Freeman after never having the opportunity to hear the case against Danny Freeman, after not knowing what the verdict is against Danny Freeman, you're going to violate your oaths. And if you ever do find out, you might be surprised of what the verdict is. We find nothing prejudicial about these remarks. Appellant also claims that the prosecutor improperly stated his personal beliefs as to Appellant's guilt and the credibility of witnesses. Appellant's characterization of these arguments is flawed. The prosecutor did nothing more than invite the jury to consider Appellant's motives for testifying untruthfully and to contrast them with Baker's motives for her testimony. Again, we find no impropriety in these arguments.