Opinion ID: 1846967
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 22

Heading: Alleged Misconduct During Closing Argument

Text: During closing argument, the prosecutor argued that the DRE protocol was used by a number of government agencies around the world. Daly made an objection, and a discussion was held at the bench. Closing argument continued, and another objection and sidebar followed. No ruling on the objections is indicated in the record, and no record was made of either discussion at the bench. Daly now assigns that the court erred in overruling [his] Motion for Mistrial regarding the remarks made by the prosecutor in closing argument. But no corresponding motion for mistrial appears in the record. Nor was a motion for mistrial made at the conclusion of the argument. [79] Nor does the record reflect the basis upon which Daly's objections were made. [80] As we explained, under comparable circumstances, in State v. Harris [81] : It is incumbent upon an appellant to supply a record which supports his or her appeal. . . . In this instance, neither the basis for the objection nor any ruling on the objection appears in the record. This court has held that a party who fails to insist upon a ruling to a proffered objection waives that objection.. . . As the record before us shows neither the basis for [the defendant's] objection nor any ruling on the objection, we conclude that [the defendant] has waived any error in this regard. Similarly, the record in this case reflects neither the basis for Daly's objection nor a ruling on the objection. Nor does the record show that a motion for mistrial was made or the basis for such a motion. Under these circumstances, we conclude that Daly has waived any error in this regard.