Opinion ID: 1635701
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: District attorney's closing argument.

Text: The defendant claims that certain remarks of the prosecutor in his closing argument constituted prejudicial error requiring reversal. The remarks were objected to at the trial but at no time did the counsel for the defendant move for a mistrial based on these supposed incidents of prosecutorial misconduct. The requirement  is that there be an objection and an immediate motion for a mistrial. It is necessary to make immediate objection and to move for a mistrial if the issue is misconduct of counsel. Sheldon v. Singer (1973), 61 Wis. 2d 443, 450, 213 N. W. 2d 5. Accord, Hansen v. State (1974), 64 Wis. 2d 541, 552, 219 N. W. 2d 246. Even if the court in its discretion decided to consider the remarks, it is clear from the record that they do not constitute misconduct.