Opinion ID: 1809395
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 27

Heading: Prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument at the guilt phase.

Text: ¶ 69. During closing arguments, the prosecutor stated, Now, I'm not making any accusations. I don't know if anything had ever happened with that child before, but that night he got carried away or something, and he hurt that child more than he intended to in this sexual battery. Havard argued on direct appeal that the prosecutor's comments suggested to the jury that Havard had previously sexually assaulted Chloe and amounted to prosecutorial misconduct. This Court noted that defense counsel failed to object and that Havard was not raising the issue under a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object. The Court found the issue to be barred but, nonetheless, discussed the issue on the merits. This Court held: Looking at the record of the entire trial, we cannot find that the actions of the State constituted prosecutorial misconduct. Additionally, considering the totality of the record, even if we were to somehow find error in these statements, such error was unquestionably harmless. Lastly, the jury was properly instructed that comments from the attorneys were not to be regarded as evidence when the jury deliberated on its verdict. Accordingly, this issue is without merit. Havard, 928 So.2d at 791. ¶ 70. Havard has not demonstrated a novel claim or a sudden reversal of law relative to this issue which would exempt it from the procedural bar of res judicata pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated Section 99-39-21(3) (Rev.2007). See also Lockett v. State, 614 So.2d 888, 897 (Miss. 1992) (citing Rideout v. State, 496 So.2d 667 (Miss.1986); Gilliard v. State, 446 So.2d 590 (Miss.1984)).